EEVblog® Electronics Community Forum
Products => Dodgy Technology => Topic started by: LogicDude on January 14, 2026, 08:35:19 pm
-
This battery has specs that are too good to be true. You have to believe that an unknown 30-person company developed this battery out of nowhere in about one year. It's all shady. The CEO has a shady background as a "serial entrepreneur" and less then a year ago he supposedly launched a "best of the best" AI company. The AI company went nowhere and I don't think it has an online footprint at all.
There are probably at least 100 clips about this alleged battery and here is one of them:
https://youtu.be/Qsi-TS8PX7U
There is a huge buzz about this battery among EV battery enthusiasts. Most of them don't believe it is real.
Notice in the clip there is a time-lapse segment of a single battery cell charging. It shows constant voltage and constant current throughout the whole charging cycle. That makes no sense at all. And it's hard to imagine the cables sustaining a constant 270 amps of current.
They are supposed to deliver electric motorcycles in three months with the new battery pack. I predict it's never going to happen.
-
Some people believe the battery is some kind of next-generation ultra-capacitor. I don't believe it, the energy densities would have to be way too high. Something like that can't just pop out of nowhere. Plus, the fake time-lapse charging clip would not make sense if it was supposedly a capacitor.
In addition, their booth at CES 2026 was something like 50' x 50' or larger. I did a paper napkin calculation that the booth rental would cost about $100k. Throw in $75k for everything else and you have an unknown company spending $175k to launch a too-good-to-be-true battery when if it was all real the battery would speak for itself.
The giant CES trade show booth was just a giant prop to impress gullible private investors. Just like the batteries shown at the show were just useless props.
-
Already discussed in "Power/Renewable Energy/EV's" (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/renewable-energy/donut-lab-announces-solid-state-battery-in-production/msg6160153/#new).
If someone claims to have found The Holly Graal then it would better show it instead of showing beer cans. The public frustration ensures that IF something would be shown eventually, then it will be put under a much harsher scrutiny.
-
Make of this what you will https://www.electronicdesign.com/blogs/nonlinearities/blog/55342148/electronic-design-ces-2026-taking-a-bite-out-of-donuts-solid-state-battery-claims (https://www.electronicdesign.com/blogs/nonlinearities/blog/55342148/electronic-design-ces-2026-taking-a-bite-out-of-donuts-solid-state-battery-claims)
-
Already discussed in "Power/Renewable Energy/EV's" (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/renewable-energy/donut-lab-announces-solid-state-battery-in-production/msg6160153/#new).
If someone claims to have found The Holly Graal then it would better show it instead of showing beer cans. The public frustration ensures that IF something would be shown eventually, then it will be put under a much harsher scrutiny.
Oops, my apologies. I had a semi brain off-gassing. Before I started the thread I did a search on "donut" and saw nothing. I did not set the scope of the search to "Entire forum" and hence my downfall.
I didn't really notice the drop-down menu for the scope of the search. Now I know.
-
Make of this what you will https://www.electronicdesign.com/blogs/nonlinearities/blog/55342148/electronic-design-ces-2026-taking-a-bite-out-of-donuts-solid-state-battery-claims (https://www.electronicdesign.com/blogs/nonlinearities/blog/55342148/electronic-design-ces-2026-taking-a-bite-out-of-donuts-solid-state-battery-claims)
Thanks, great little opinion piece. In another life I used to real all of those magazines. I remember "EDN," Electronics Design News, where you could keep up with all of the new product releases.
https://www.edn.com/ (https://www.edn.com/)
And Electronics Engineering Times.
https://www.eetimes.com/ (https://www.eetimes.com/)
Back in the Stone Age where you had to read off of physical paper.
-
I started watching the video and about minute 6 it was obvious where this was going which was confirmed at minute 8 when the author claimed the company invested in a nano technology company. It's not a battery it's a super capacitor.
In my opinion this technology was inevitable because the storage capacity is dictated by voltage but more so surface area. In effect, whoever can create a stable nano material with the greatest surface area per volume wins. Surface area and nano technology is the holy grail of energy storage and anyone who knows anything is looking at it.
It's not rocket science, at a constant voltage if the plates of a capacitor are sliced up into 100 thinner plates the energy storage increases by 100.
I have heard of many battery and super capacitor companies making big claims and in almost every case they are made an offer they can't refuse and are shelved. Tesla and giga-factories would become a penny stock or worthless overnight. Only the patently naive and gullible would believe this technology wasn't invented many times and shelved by some oil company. In fact now the U.S. is saying the quiet part out loud, if you have oil or resources they will take your country by force if needed. This isn't hearsay this is now government policy.
So it doesn't matter if they have the technology, they will take the payoff and the technology shelved or be disappeared.
-
Deep-dive investigation of what it might be...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbGxbII44eE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbGxbII44eE)
-
In my opinion this technology was inevitable because the storage capacity is dictated by voltage but more so surface area. In effect, whoever can create a stable nano material with the greatest surface area per volume wins. Surface area and nano technology is the holy grail of energy storage and anyone who knows anything is looking at it.
It's not rocket science, at a constant voltage if the plates of a capacitor are sliced up into 100 thinner plates the energy storage increases by 100.
Stored energy grows proportionally with capacity and squared voltage. Cca. 2010 there was some company claiming to have discovered some magic dielectric dust and produced a supercapacitor able to charge at over 3kV and - I think - 30F (=37.5KWh). I heard nothing of them since then.
-
Deep-dive investigation of what it might be...
I give them credit for their investigations and speculations. However, she is trying to make everything fit and most of the pieces are just a mixture of speculation and wishful thinking.
The good news is we just have to wait and find out. Assuming the delivery on the motorcycle is delayed, and then delayed again, the people that ordered are going to vent their frustrations on social media.
As far as the motorcycle with the donut motor goes, many motorcycle enthusiasts have mentioned having the entire motor as unsprung weight is not a good thing.
-
I have heard of many battery and super capacitor companies making big claims and in almost every case they are made an offer they can't refuse and are shelved. Tesla and giga-factories would become a penny stock or worthless overnight. Only the patently naive and gullible would believe this technology wasn't invented many times and shelved by some oil company.
So it doesn't matter if they have the technology, they will take the payoff and the technology shelved or be disappeared.
Why would an oil company care if someone came up with a better battery, or a better capacitor that can store more energy?
And what about the renewable energy industry? Solar and wind and geothermal. Certainly that has reduced the demand for oil. Do you think that people in the oil industry are threatening the people in the renewable energy industry?
-
oil company care if someone came up with a better battery, or a better capacitor that can store more energy?
And what about the renewable energy industry? Solar and wind and geothermal. Certainly that has reduced the demand for oil. Do you think that people in the oil industry are threatening the people in the renewable energy industry?
These companies are not stupid, nor are oil rich countries - oil will be necessary forever (as a base chemical), but the "energy" part is on countdown.
So within the forseeable future, the market will shift, why not using billions of the money to get a foot in the door and establish investments in future technologies. And with these amounts of money, they can easily get ahead of the established "renewable industry".
-
There are a bunch of (typically) Chinese EV makers working on these things, but they're huge companies not two guys in a garage, e.g. SAIC. There's also solid-state-ish batteries that use gel electrolytes which you can buy right now, although they're not mainstream yet. And Japanese manufacturers like Toyota have been filing patents for them in large numbers, but they typically never pre-announce until a product is nearly ready for release.
So it looks like these guys are just riding the wave of expected SS batteries and hoping to make a quick buck from it.
-
The CEO said thousands of OEM companies are asking for samples and the best way to get a sample is to buy the motorcycle. Strange.
15:15 -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqcW-yNO42w&t=916s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqcW-yNO42w&t=916s)
-
The CEO said thousands of OEM companies are asking for samples and the best way to get a sample is to buy the motorcycle. Strange.
Yeah, sure. I'd interpret this as: "A couple of companies asked for a sample. Some visitors showed interest into buying the motorcycle, until they heard the retail price."
Presenting a random box and showing *nothing* is really a good way to gather interest.
-
When the original announcement came out, my first thought was i found it strange that such a potential breakthrough energy storage technology's first application is some stupid motorbike. But after i found out that Donut and Verge CEOs are brothers, everything fell in place.
-
I have now watched most of the video - the Munro guy asked the right questions, but nothing about the battery was revealed.
And I'm really not a fan of the hub motor, the wheel mass is way too high to drive anything else than a town car, but is likely too expensive when not being sourced from China.
However the YT comments note that the motorcycle *is* real and can be purchased right away, but it is not great and runs on Lithium cells.
(Releasing/manufacturing the motorcycle is in itself quite something. But we all came to see the new battery...)
-
She is doing her best to make it work, with no technical input from Donut Labs, so this is 90% speculation.
Also, she is not an engineer, so she is obviously presenting somebody else's work; it would be good to know who it is and what their background in chemistry / battery technology is.
I have to say that, until now, I didn't realise the company is based here in Finland.
-
Interesting, over on Linkedin they made the announcement a week ago and claim to be about to go into production, yet they aren't recruiting. In fact, their last recruitment campaign was for 2 legal counsels, and that was 3 months ago.
-
I have heard of many battery and super capacitor companies making big claims and in almost every case they are made an offer they can't refuse and are shelved. Tesla and giga-factories would become a penny stock or worthless overnight. Only the patently naive and gullible would believe this technology wasn't invented many times and shelved by some oil company. In fact now the U.S. is saying the quiet part out loud, if you have oil or resources they will take your country by force if needed. This isn't hearsay this is now government policy.
So it doesn't matter if they have the technology, they will take the payoff and the technology shelved or be disappeared.
Oh my god, here we go again. "It's all a big conspiracy by the oil companies." Blah blah, <massive yawn>. Can't you think of something more original? :palm:
-
I have heard of many battery and super capacitor companies making big claims and in almost every case they are made an offer they can't refuse and are shelved. Tesla and giga-factories would become a penny stock or worthless overnight. Only the patently naive and gullible would believe this technology wasn't invented many times and shelved by some oil company. In fact now the U.S. is saying the quiet part out loud, if you have oil or resources they will take your country by force if needed. This isn't hearsay this is now government policy.
So it doesn't matter if they have the technology, they will take the payoff and the technology shelved or be disappeared.
Oh my god, here we go again. "It's all a big conspiracy by the oil companies." Blah blah, <massive yawn>. Can't you think of something more original? :palm:
Actually no, and the "conspiracy" gambit is a bs argument.
It's a well established and documented fact that big companies monopolize markets and interfere with any competition. The fossil fuel and tobacco industries are well documented examples.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/feliciajackson/2025/05/14/big-oil-knew-big-oil-lied-fossil-fuels-long-strategy-of-deceit/ (https://www.forbes.com/sites/feliciajackson/2025/05/14/big-oil-knew-big-oil-lied-fossil-fuels-long-strategy-of-deceit/)
https://commonhome.georgetown.edu/topics/climateenergy/defense-denial-and-disinformation-uncovering-the-oil-industrys-early-knowledge-of-climate-change/ (https://commonhome.georgetown.edu/topics/climateenergy/defense-denial-and-disinformation-uncovering-the-oil-industrys-early-knowledge-of-climate-change/)
The fiasco in Venezuela is a good example and trump claimed it was all about oil and not drugs. He literally claimed drugs was a bs excuse to illegally take out the sovereign leader of another country over oil. As most leaders have said, "it's about the oil stupid".
-
Only the patently naive and gullible would believe this technology wasn't invented many times and shelved by some oil company.
So, anyone who does not believe this technology has been invented and shelved many times by some oil company is patently naive and gullible.
Really? Seriously?
I think anyone who does believe it - without any actual objective evidence - is the one who is credulous and gullible.
-
I have heard of many battery and super capacitor companies making big claims and in almost every case they are made an offer they can't refuse and are shelved. Tesla and giga-factories would become a penny stock or worthless overnight. Only the patently naive and gullible would believe this technology wasn't invented many times and shelved by some oil company. In fact now the U.S. is saying the quiet part out loud, if you have oil or resources they will take your country by force if needed. This isn't hearsay this is now government policy.
So it doesn't matter if they have the technology, they will take the payoff and the technology shelved or be disappeared.
Oh my god, here we go again. "It's all a big conspiracy by the oil companies." Blah blah, <massive yawn>. Can't you think of something more original? :palm:
Actually no, and the "conspiracy" gambit is a bs argument.
It's a well established and documented fact that big companies monopolize markets and interfere with any competition. The fossil fuel and tobacco industries are well documented examples.
Yabbut, that only goes so far as a valid explanation.
I remember clearly back in the 1980s when the prevailing rumor/conspiracy theory was that since the oil companies couldn't squash solar energy, they were going to take over the emerging industry, monopolize it and then bury it by making it unaffordable.
That, of course, did not happen.
-
The usual suspects Two Bit Davinci and Electric Viking have videos, of course:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8PjlwZVLVE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8PjlwZVLVE)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9xriZvZuKs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9xriZvZuKs)
-
Wow, Electric Viking is calling out the scam, huge props for that:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYiVfOpA8HU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYiVfOpA8HU)
-
Interesting, over on Linkedin they made the announcement a week ago and claim to be about to go into production, yet they aren't recruiting. In fact, their last recruitment campaign was for 2 legal counsels, and that was 3 months ago.
I already thanked you, but I have to quote you and say that you made a fantastic observation! When you are doing something like these Donut Lab characters, it is very difficult to cover all of your bases.
-
Why does the PSU show 80A SINKING current?
It's an SM15K series 500V PSU
https://www.deltaelektronika.com/products/sm15k-series (https://www.deltaelektronika.com/products/sm15k-series)
https://www.deltaelektronika.com/sites/default/files/2025-12/SM15K_prod_manual_V202512-1.pdf (https://www.deltaelektronika.com/sites/default/files/2025-12/SM15K_prod_manual_V202512-1.pdf)
https://www.deltaelektronika.com/sites/default/files/2025-12/SM15K_DTS_V202511-2.pdf (https://www.deltaelektronika.com/sites/default/files/2025-12/SM15K_DTS_V202511-2.pdf)
-
Why does the PSU show 80A SINKING current?
It's an SM15K series 500V PSU
I have never played with a power supply like this because I am Old School. In looking at the manual it looks like they set it to 80A max when sinking current. But of course it's supposedly charging a battery cell and it would never need to sink current. I was a little shocked to read that when it sinks current it pumps the power back into the AC mains. It makes sense of course but my "tech clock" stopped a long time ago.
I just noticed that the power supply is in constant-voltage mode. And we are supposed to believe that over several minutes the master-slave-slave triple power supply configuration responded to the Donut Lab battery cell "welcoming" a continuous 270 amps being pumped into it. Almost like the battery cell was a near short-circuit.
Also, we are supposed to believe that the charging efficiency was near-100% because they were pumping 1.4 kW into that little battery cell about the size of a slice of bread. In my mind it should have become burnt toast in about seven seconds.
It doesn't make any sense as far as I am concerned. I think it's just a basic video editing job we are looking at. If you are a good video editor you can make it all look seamless and perfect quite easily.
-
It doesn't make any sense as far as I am concerned. I think it's just a basic video editing job we are looking at. If you are a good video editor you can make it all look seamless and perfect quite easily.
No need for video editing, it's trivial to make this look legit. Just have a load or other batteries in parallel off camera. 270A is going out all right, just not to that one innocent little cell and those relatively flimsy connections.
Let people infer that it's just going to that one cell.
-
The great thing is that you can beat physics with videos.
-
1.4kW with a CV of 4.1V shakes out to ~341A. Nothing about this even comes close to adding up
-
1.4kW with a CV of 4.1V shakes out to ~341A. Nothing about this even comes close to adding up
Yes indeed. I was too lazy to check that from my comfy armchair.
Between this and the other thread, enough material has been accumulated for a really good debunking video.
-
It doesn't make any sense as far as I am concerned. I think it's just a basic video editing job we are looking at. If you are a good video editor you can make it all look seamless and perfect quite easily.
No need for video editing, it's trivial to make this look legit. Just have a load or other batteries in parallel off camera. 270A is going out all right, just not to that one innocent little cell and those relatively flimsy connections.
Let people infer that it's just going to that one cell.
Agree and many are making a mountain out of a mole hill imo.
I was involved with a startup about 10 years ago working on something similar to this. We were looking at high volume graphene production for super capacitors. This technology is coming whether people believe it or not. The capacitor tech is well known and the only limitation is cheap industrial level graphene production.
Donut labs is also giving textbook graphene super capacitor specs we all knew about 10 years ago. Fast charging, high life cycle and a very high energy density. Nothing new here.
In fact there is a very good chance they hooked up with a company using a roll to roll graphene CVD process we looked at.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K309K-DFqpE, (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K309K-DFqpE,) UNLIMITED GRAPHENE - MIT Graphene Roll to Roll CVD Explained
This guy has some neat video's, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hHoL77QDkg, (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hHoL77QDkg,) Making Graphene could KILL you... but we did it anyway?!
-
Donut labs is also giving textbook graphene super capacitor specs we all knew about 10 years ago. Fast charging, high life cycle and a very high energy density. Nothing new here.
If it was actually a capacitor we would see the voltage increasing during the charging process but we don't see that.
And the charging clip is a fraud, so we are left with zero information. We will get information by the end of April when presumably there will be complaints on social media from buyers that the motorcycle has not been delivered to any customers.
-
I agree the clip was a fraud. As to buying a motorcycle- i think the fraudsters were hiring legal councils for a reason. By now they likely have a defense plan and/or exit plan. The motorcycle price is high, who would buy a motorcycle to just disassemble it to get to the battery, and if you did what are you going to see, is the buyer an expert to determine the technology. The motorcycle purchase may come with a legal condition prohibiting disassembly. And even if you do and determine the battery is of an existing technology they will say you bought a wrong motorcycle model.
-
If it was actually a capacitor we would see the voltage increasing during the charging process but we don't see that.
This, obviously. This is where many armchair speculators have gone 180deg wrong:
* Voltage is constant over the charge cycle, it should be increasing if this is a battery
* Oh so this must be a capacitor
:palm:
So, they have never charged a capacitor.
Sure, for a battery, charge voltage is not constant during charge. It increases. But for a capacitor, it increases even more, namely, linearly with more charge (Ah) put in.
If it was a capacitor and you charged it from 0% SoC with the final CV voltage, you would be doing that classical (and confusing to many) 50% efficiency experiment. Actually, for a capacitor, the efficiency can be estimated from the voltage difference between the expected straight curve and the actual voltage at the output of the power supply. And with high power like that, you can't afford much below 98% or so, or you would have a serious thermal problem.
So it's neither a battery nor a capacitor, it's just a scam.
-
The motorcycle price is high, who would buy a motorcycle to just disassemble it to get to the battery
A competitor, obviously. Companies do it all the time. It is normal practice in the motor industry (although less so nowadays because almost all products are collaborative efforts between so-called competitors).
.... and if you did what are you going to see, is the buyer an expert to determine the technology.
Yes, an industry competitor would have the means to evaluate the technology.
The motorcycle purchase may come with a legal condition prohibiting disassembly.
I doubt that would be legally enforceable. But I'm sure a competitor would do it anyway and take the minimal risk involved.
-
The motorcycle purchase may come with a legal condition prohibiting disassembly.
I doubt that would be legally enforceable. But I'm sure a competitor would do it anyway and take the minimal risk involved.
Unless it's only leased, there's nothing they can do to prevent it.
-
I agree the clip was a fraud. As to buying a motorcycle- i think the fraudsters were hiring legal councils for a reason. By now they likely have a defense plan and/or exit plan. The motorcycle price is high, who would buy a motorcycle to just disassemble it to get to the battery, and if you did what are you going to see, is the buyer an expert to determine the technology. The motorcycle purchase may come with a legal condition prohibiting disassembly. And even if you do and determine the battery is of an existing technology they will say you bought a wrong motorcycle model.
I was involved in a few startups and legal council is standard. Imagine spending years of time and effort on R&D for a technology and you get to the point of selling a viable product. Now we need investors and contracts and employees and facilities and the list goes on. The problem is after all this time and effort we can be pretty sure some lazy douche bag who did no work is going to try to steal the technology.
As we know this psychotic if not evil behavior has become rampant and many think they are entitled to steal whatever they want. Ideas, technology, companies, resources and now even other countries like Greenland. Here's the thing Bud, if we let evil people steal from whomever they want it's just a matter of time before we are next on the list. History has proven this is generally the case.
So ya, if Donut Labs was my company I would lawyer up and make it my job to put these douche bags who steal from others in prison where they belong. It's not just business it's theft.
-
If one invents some new advancement, patent it. Not bullet proof but it will go a fair way to restrict rip-offs.
-
Imagine spending years of time and effort on R&D for a technology and you get to the point of selling a viable product. Now we need investors and contracts and employees and facilities and the list goes on.
Hmmmm. But almost viable.
It kinda sounds familiar, deja vu.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTAur4XqFk8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTAur4XqFk8)
-
The fiasco in Venezuela is a good example and trump claimed it was all about oil and not drugs. He literally claimed drugs was a bs excuse to illegally take out the sovereign leader of another country over oil. As most leaders have said, "it's about the oil stupid".
In proper order.
Drugs were an issue worldwide, now it's less.
The oil seized was sanctioned oil.
A dictator(s) that the people of that country have hated for 27yrs, done.
USA was the only flag to have nutsack to do all 3. Job well done, just ask the people of Venezuela.
MX is next.
-
How is Donut a breakthrough? Donut has 500Wh/kg "breakthrough" but competitors already surpass that?
Chery's Exeed says they have 600Wh/kg solid state.
Prototype 600Wh/kg solid-state battery for the Liefeng model, expected in 2026. If it has "electrolytes" ........ what type of solid state is that?
https://carnewschina.com/2026/01/19/cherys-liefeng-shooting-brake-will-be-equipped-with-solid-state-battery-in-2026-1500-km-range-in-30%e2%84%83-environment (https://carnewschina.com/2026/01/19/cherys-liefeng-shooting-brake-will-be-equipped-with-solid-state-battery-in-2026-1500-km-range-in-30%e2%84%83-environment/)
-
Why does the PSU show 80A SINKING current?
It's an SM15K series 500V PSU
I have never played with a power supply like this because I am Old School. In looking at the manual it looks like they set it to 80A max when sinking current. But of course it's supposedly charging a battery cell and it would never need to sink current. I was a little shocked to read that when it sinks current it pumps the power back into the AC mains. It makes sense of course but my "tech clock" stopped a long time ago.
I just noticed that the power supply is in constant-voltage mode. And we are supposed to believe that over several minutes the master-slave-slave triple power supply configuration responded to the Donut Lab battery cell "welcoming" a continuous 270 amps being pumped into it. Almost like the battery cell was a near short-circuit.
Also, we are supposed to believe that the charging efficiency was near-100% because they were pumping 1.4 kW into that little battery cell about the size of a slice of bread. In my mind it should have become burnt toast in about seven seconds.
It doesn't make any sense as far as I am concerned. I think it's just a basic video editing job we are looking at. If you are a good video editor you can make it all look seamless and perfect quite easily.
Nah, 270A charge is believable. Here is a datasheet for some high end Lithium cells from ~20 years ago. Datasheet from 2005:
https://www.shoptronica.com/ficheros/VL41M.pdf (https://www.shoptronica.com/ficheros/VL41M.pdf)
As you see these will easily do 150A for a 40Ah cell, or ~4C meaning. These are 10C, not impossible. I've measured anywhere around 1mOhm ESR for larger regular lithium cells.
Or 200A short circuit currents out of 18650 sized cells.
I have another issue with the video, and that's the battery itself. On the video of the charge, around 4 minute mark there is clearly some changing in the reflections of the light on the battery. It changes it's shape. Which is somewhat normal for a Lipo battery, but I don't think a solid state battery is supposed to do that. Not if you want what... 100000 cycles out of it? Besides the 100K claim is very difficult to even test. 100K to what? 30% loss? Just charging and discharging a battery with 10C, the test would last longer than 2 years, very impractical. And I don't get why they would lie about this completely unnecessary parameter.
-
Since supercapacitors are right now in the 400-500 Wh/kg area, Donut has a supercap. Nothing of "breakthrough" worthiness.
Maybe they call it "solid-state" because what they have does not meet the well-known definition of battery.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wW7vuTpGWHc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wW7vuTpGWHc)
-
Maybe they call it "solid-state" because what they have does not meet the well-known definition of battery.
There are only two ways to store energy in this case, either electrostatic (SuperCap), or in electrochemical form (battery). It's either one or the other.
-
. Imagine spending years of time and effort on R&D for a technology and you get to the point of selling a viable product. Now we need investors and contracts and employees and facilities and the list goes on.
Yes. And the very first viable customer you grant that breakthrough technology to use is not an automotive or aviation giant but some stupid motorcycle company. Makes total sense.
-
Judging on the "charging demo" clip , their technology is a Resistor. This is the only technology the "demonstrated" charging profile fits (no change in voltage and no change in current over the charging cycle).
-
A dictator(s) that the people of that country have hated for 27yrs, done.
Bullshit.
That's the "narrative" that the mainstream media and the hegemonic US state want everyone to believe.
"Chavismo" is still very much alive and very popular in Venezuela.
Among everyone except the "oligarchs" (the usual 1%ers).
-
There are only two ways to store energy in this case, either electrostatic (SuperCap), or in electrochemical form (battery). It's either one or the other.
As I said before, you can do both. Electrostatic at the cathode and chemical at the anode.
There's actually quite a lot of publicly funded research in the EU (and Britain) into sodium ion capacitors and hybrids. Nordic Nano not part of it, but they likely used that as inspiration for their pitch.
-
There's actually quite a lot of publicly funded research in the EU (and Britain) into sodium ion capacitors and hybrids. Nordic Nano not part of it, but they likely used that as inspiration for their pitch.
So there is, but I thought the energy density was poor compared to even regular lithium ion, and so they aren't really a practical thing?
-
This might also be in the too good to be true region, but this paper claims a hybrid with 247 Wh per kg (made possible mostly by the cathode surface area).
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2405829724001958 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2405829724001958)
-
Judging on the "charging demo" clip , their technology is a Resistor. This is the only technology the "demonstrated" charging profile fits (no change in voltage and no change in current over the charging cycle).
But there are IC's for supercap charging that can do CC and CV modes. Having both I and V stuck on a # does not make sense though.
https://www.mouser.com/datasheet/2/256/MAX17701-1888136.pdf (https://www.mouser.com/datasheet/2/256/MAX17701-1888136.pdf)
-
There's actually quite a lot of publicly funded research in the EU (and Britain) into sodium ion capacitors and hybrids. Nordic Nano not part of it, but they likely used that as inspiration for their pitch.
So there is, but I thought the energy density was poor compared to even regular lithium ion, and so they aren't really a practical thing?
Around 1500mAh in a 18650 cell, with 3v average voltage.
It's not an energy density champion, but the price can drop very low with volume. I think they already going into electric cars in China. And it has other benefits.
-
Maybe they call it "solid-state" because what they have does not meet the well-known definition of battery.
There are only two ways to store energy in this case, either electrostatic (SuperCap), or in electrochemical form (battery). It's either one or the other.
Agreed but there could more to it imo.
Imagine your hands are the flat electrodes of a capacitor and in between them the electrolyte forming a dual layer capacitor. The capacity is limited because the electrode surface area is limited. Now imagine we could engineer the electrode material with specific peaks and valleys like our fingers being interlocked. We could easily quadruple the surface area and capacity. If we made the engineered material of something like porous graphene then the total surface area could be what's outside our interlocked fingers and inside them.
In other words, we don't know what the maximum capacity per unit volume is because we don't know how far we can extend the surface area inward. We could have smaller peaks and valleys on the surface of the larger peaks and valleys all within a three dimensional porous framework.
I think it could be done with something like roll to roll CVD graphene followed by high speed laser etching/lithography. The science is sound and the technology known.
-
Maybe they call it "solid-state" because what they have does not meet the well-known definition of battery.
There are only two ways to store energy in this case, either electrostatic (SuperCap), or in electrochemical form (battery). It's either one or the other.
Perhaps, but neither of them are solid-state things. To call a supercap "solid-state" or a "battery" is just wrong.
If there are hybrid versions, then the thingy pack should be labeled according to 1) how the electrons are created, and 2) how the useable charge is stored.
I think the best way to frame this cap tech, is to start with some agreed-upon definitions, go from there.
What is solid-state?
Solid-state is a common descriptor used to refer to electronic components, devices and systems based entirely on semiconductor materials such as silicon, germanium or gallium arsenide. The term solid-state was especially prevalent in the late 1950s and early 1960s, during the transition from vacuum tube technology to the diode and transistor.
-
There's actually quite a lot of publicly funded research in the EU (and Britain) into sodium ion capacitors and hybrids. Nordic Nano not part of it, but they likely used that as inspiration for their pitch.
So there is, but I thought the energy density was poor compared to even regular lithium ion, and so they aren't really a practical thing?
Around 1500mAh in a 18650 cell, with 3v average voltage.
It's not an energy density champion, but the price can drop very low with volume. I think they already going into electric cars in China. And it has other benefits.
I thought the Li stuff was plentiful, easy to get at, and easy to convert into a energy dense toxic batt pack, which by now should be driving down prices on a daily basis. I guess we were lied to.
So in grand scheme of tech, is it now supercap vs HFCEV ? I know Toyota is working on system where the 'gas' tank is just water, and the drive system is fuel-cell or HICE or HICE-hybrid.
The issue with supercap is the sudden release of energy, like when Li packs light up and cut vehicle in half. We don't have that problem if the fuel is a tank of water. The more energy dense and bigger the supercap gets, the more dangerous it becomes. The bigger the water tank gets, the heavier the vehicle is. ;)
IMHO,..... batt pack of any kind for cars and trucks, is nothing more than CD just waiting to kill DAT. Already a dying fad, etc.
-
So in grand scheme of tech, is it now supercap vs HFCEV ? I know Toyota is working on system where the 'gas' tank is just water, and the drive system is fuel-cell or HICE or HICE-hybrid.
<... >
The bigger the water tank gets, the heavier the vehicle is. ;)
I'm confused. What is the water for? As a source of hydrogen? Where does the energy come from to hydrolise it?
-
There's actually quite a lot of publicly funded research in the EU (and Britain) into sodium ion capacitors and hybrids. Nordic Nano not part of it, but they likely used that as inspiration for their pitch.
So there is, but I thought the energy density was poor compared to even regular lithium ion, and so they aren't really a practical thing?
Around 1500mAh in a 18650 cell, with 3v average voltage.
It's not an energy density champion, but the price can drop very low with volume. I think they already going into electric cars in China. And it has other benefits.
I thought the Li stuff was plentiful, easy to get at, and easy to convert into a energy dense toxic batt pack, which by now should be driving down prices on a daily basis. I guess we were lied to.
So in grand scheme of tech, is it now supercap vs HFCEV ? I know Toyota is working on system where the 'gas' tank is just water, and the drive system is fuel-cell or HICE or HICE-hybrid.
The issue with supercap is the sudden release of energy, like when Li packs light up and cut vehicle in half. We don't have that problem if the fuel is a tank of water. The more energy dense and bigger the supercap gets, the more dangerous it becomes. The bigger the water tank gets, the heavier the vehicle is. ;)
IMHO,..... batt pack of any kind for cars and trucks, is nothing more than CD just waiting to kill DAT. Already a dying fad, etc.
A tank of water running a fuel cell?. You do understand it takes "energy" to split the water into hydrogen for the fuel cell don't you?. Or is this one of those vehicles powered by water? :palm:.
Super capacitors are by far the best solution because they can be built from common materials like graphene from carbon and almost any conductor like copper or aluminum. Couple super capacitors with a brush-less Rare Earth-Free Electric Motor and it's game over for all the competition.
https://kittybnk.com/mahles-rare-earth-free-electric-motor-a-sustainable-innovation/
-
A tank of water running a fuel cell?. You do understand it takes "energy" to split the water into hydrogen for the fuel cell don't you?. Or is this one of those vehicles powered by water? :palm:.
Super capacitors are by far the best solution because they can be built from common materials like graphene from carbon and almost any conductor like copper or aluminum. Couple super capacitors with a brush-less Rare Earth-Free Electric Motor and it's game over for all the competition.
https://kittybnk.com/mahles-rare-earth-free-electric-motor-a-sustainable-innovation/
Using the energy from water to split water for use, is rather simple. The pitfall, not unlike a ice-EV hybrid, you need a little energy (H or from batt) to get things started. But yep, the system will split the water to get at H. There's no physics violations, you consume water (some of it) to keep the system running. When the water goes dry the system stops.
Some shocking math.
1gal of water can make 4707 litres of H, which is approx 422g worth
The Toyota Mirai goes 647km per 5.6kg H
I wave the magic math wand at it, that's about 30mi per 1gal of water.
A 20gal tank of water has in it 600mi worth of H, when the system used is the Mirai HFCEV.
BUT
With current tech, the use-to-make ratio is approx 1.58:1
1.58gal of water needed to split 1gal of water.
For every 2.58 H atoms coming out of electrolysis, 1.58 has to be fed back to the electrolysis process, and 1 part goes to the HFCEV propulsion system.
So, that means you need to consume 2.58gal water to go 30mi, thus a 20gal water tank can take vehicle approx 232mi.
Even with that dismal 1tank range, I am ok pulling over to fill up 20gal from a garden hose. Make tank 30-40gal, then you have great range.
BUT
HFCEV is only about 38% efficient currently. However, I already included that hit by using the Mirai system, it's range per kgH aleady includes the 38% efficiency factor.
Avg water gal cost in US (online stats) is 3c/10gal, or 0.3/gal.
20gal =232mi = 6 cent.
Crazy yet true.
H is the future, period.
btw, check my math. ;)
The elephant though is, such vehicle will likely be costly up front, so the total cost (TCO/mi) over say 10yrs or 300kmi, is perhaps higher per mile than existing gasoline or EV, but build costs will come down over time. Recall the very first BluRay players, probably cost 10-20x more then vs now.
-
Using the energy from water to split water for use, is rather simple. The pitfall, not unlike a ice-EV hybrid, you need a little energy (H or from batt) to get things started. But yep, the system will split the water to get at H. There's no physics violations, you consume water (some of it) to keep the system running. When the water goes dry the system stops.
Some shocking math.
This is not what's happening in a hydrogen fuel cell car, you are way off with your understanding of that technology.
Please look it up, and get a bit of extra understanding on it.
A tank of water running a fuel cell?. You do understand it takes "energy" to split the water into hydrogen for the fuel cell don't you?. Or is this one of those vehicles powered by water? :palm:.
Super capacitors are by far the best solution because they can be built from common materials like graphene from carbon and almost any conductor like copper or aluminum. Couple super capacitors with a brush-less Rare Earth-Free Electric Motor and it's game over for all the competition.
https://kittybnk.com/mahles-rare-earth-free-electric-motor-a-sustainable-innovation/
"wireless power transmission to energize its rotor"
Oh no they re-invented the asynchronous motor, 200 years after it was first made. :palm:
-
Using the energy from water to split water for use, is rather simple.
Sure it is: raise water to a sufficient height, then pour it from there onto a wheel or turbine, which will drive an electric generator. Then use the electric energy it produces for electrolysis to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, job done.
-
Using the energy from water to split water for use, is rather simple.
Sure it is: raise water to a sufficient height, then pour it from there onto a wheel or turbine, which will drive an electric generator. Then use the electric energy it produces for electrolysis to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, job done.
There's no need to lift the water. And we're not talking about gravitational potential.
Energy that is in water, just like joules that are trapped in gasoline.
You only need to start the system, hence you need some stored H to run through HFC or HICE to get the electric end going. Perhaps the vehicle totes a small car batt too, just in case the H goes completely dry you can used the batt to get some H from electrolysis, then that H is used to "start" the system
No free lunch here, it consumes 1.58 gal to split 1gal. However, the eco side of the process is 100% clean.
The piece not talked about yet, how to make electrolysis speedy and more efficient. Duke Univ has been working on that problem.
-
Energy that is in water, just like joules that are trapped in gasoline.
Yeah, but to release the joules you need to spend at least as much energy to split the water to produce H and O as you're going to get back when combining hydrogen and oxygen back together.
Water is the lowest-energy, stable combination of hydrogen and oxygen. You cannot extract any more energy from it, at least chemically (but you can in a fusion reactor).
Gasoline is different. It's unstable and still has chemical energy that can be released. When you burn gasoline, it produces energy plus a number of stable substances that (when fully burnt) can no longer release energy, just like hydrogen, when burnt, produces energy plus water, which can no longer burn.
Come on, are you trolling or something? This is middle school chemistry and physics and fundamental laws thereof.
You only need to start the system, hence you need some stored H to run through HFC or HICE to get the electric end going. Perhaps the vehicle totes a small car batt too, just in case the H goes completely dry you can used the batt to get some H from electrolysis, then that H is used to "start" the system
No free lunch here, it consumes 1.58 gal to split 1gal. However, the eco side of the process is 100% clean.
The piece not talked about yet, how to make electrolysis speedy and more efficient. Duke Univ has been working on that problem.
Nonsense. You always spend more energy on electrolysis that you can get back from burning hydrogen and making water again. That's it, there's no way around it.
-
Yeah, but to release the joules you need to spend at least as much energy to split the water to produce H and O as you're going to get back when combining hydrogen and oxygen back together.
Water is the lowest-energy, stable combination of hydrogen and oxygen. You cannot extract any more energy from it, at least chemically (but you can in a fusion reactor).
Gasoline is different. It's unstable and still has chemical energy that can be released. When you burn gasoline, it produces energy plus a number of stable substances that (when fully burnt) can no longer release energy, just like hydrogen, when burnt, produces energy plus water, which can no longer burn.
Come on, are you trolling or something? This is middle school chemistry and physics and fundamental laws thereof.
Nonsense. You always spend more energy on electrolysis that you can get back from burning hydrogen and making water again. That's it, there's no way around it.
To extract means to get from. We get lots of energy out of gasoline when it burns.
We get useable potential energy in form of H by splitting water. We then consume (process) H to get energy out of it.
And yes, I already listed the math, it takes 1.58x more H to make 1H.
1.58H consumed to get back 1H.
As H is produced, 1.58H is sent back to electrolysis, the other 1H is sent to the propulsion system.
Heck, round it over to 2:1, that's a 3gal system, takes 2 to make 1.
For every 1gal split for propulsion, 2gal is consumed in splitting that 1gal. 30gal tank, 20gal used to convert 10gal for propulsion.
Edit: will stop here on H.
The supercap stuff is cool, has some applications, but it's dead tech for cars, truck, forklifts, etc.
-
Judging on the "charging demo" clip , their technology is a Resistor. This is the only technology the "demonstrated" charging profile fits (no change in voltage and no change in current over the charging cycle).
But there are IC's for supercap charging that can do CC and CV modes. Having both I and V stuck on a # does not make sense though.
https://www.mouser.com/datasheet/2/256/MAX17701-1888136.pdf (https://www.mouser.com/datasheet/2/256/MAX17701-1888136.pdf)
No, that is just a constant current controller, it switches to constant voltage at the end of the charging cycle, they show this in the diagrams.
-
There's no need to lift the water. And we're not talking about gravitational potential.
Energy that is in water, just like joules that are trapped in gasoline.
You only need to start the system, hence you need some stored H to run through HFC or HICE to get the electric end going. Perhaps the vehicle totes a small car batt too, just in case the H goes completely dry you can used the batt to get some H from electrolysis, then that H is used to "start" the system
No free lunch here, it consumes 1.58 gal to split 1gal. However, the eco side of the process is 100% clean.
I'm struggling to understand this. But as far as I can tell, it is complete drivel from start to finish. The first thing to say is that there is no chemical energy in water.
Splitting water into H2 and O2 by electrolysis consumes more energy than even a 100% efficient hydrogen fuel cell can produce by consuming the liberated hydrogen. Why? Because electrolysis of water has a maximum theoretical efficiency of 83%, and a maximum practical efficiency of around 60%.
You made this really weird statement:
"... it consumes 1.58 gal to split 1gal"
What do you mean by "consumed"? Let me repeat:
It uses more hydrogen to "split" (electrolyse) water than is liberated by the electrolysis.
There is simply no way to "release" the energy that is in water, because there isn't any. Your claims are so ridiculous and brain-dead I can only assume they are a joke? If not, then you have an astonishing lack of understanding of basic science.
-
I think there is no reason for debating if we agree Donut's "charging demo" clip is s fake. If this was a fake, everything else is likely to be the same.
I have no idea why would they want this fake. Did not they realize engineers would be looking at it?
-
For every 1gal split for propulsion, 2gal is consumed in splitting that 1gal. 30gal tank, 20gal used to convert 10gal for propulsion.
You seem to misunderstand. That 2 gallons of water does not have energy sitting in it ready to use for splitting the other 1 gallon. Electrolysis does not liberate energy, it consumes energy.
Let me ask you a simple question. If we can liberate energy from water in the way you suggest, why are we fucking around with digging gas and oil out of the ground? With solar panels and wind turbines? Water is abundant - why aren't we just using that?
You know what? This conversation is so surreal I'm certain someone is either a moron or taking the piss.
-
I think there is no reason for debating if we agree Donut's "charging demo" clip is s fake. If this was a fake, everything else is likely to be the same.
I would agree unless you can show some obvious screw up. The PSU says its always in CV mode which is odd, but it might be a quirk of that specific psu.. Normally a PSU would show CC when voltage setpoint is not reached, as the current is capped at 270A.
You can do frame-by-frame (, and .) the first voltage is 2.7V, 1ms later once power is on it jumps to 3.6V, then sits at 4V from 1s on.
Here is a smaller 100A li-ion capacitor where they charge it at 100A and you can see voltage is super linear in comparison: https://hal.science/hal-00373149v1/document donut is a bit similar to LCO cell curve, though even flatter.
-
I think there is no reason for debating if we agree Donut's "charging demo" clip is s fake. If this was a fake, everything else is likely to be the same.
I have no idea why would they want this fake. Did not they realize engineers would be looking at it?
That's the thing, I don't think it's "fake" as such.
I think the camera really is pointing at PSU screen and it's really delivering that, and the time is accurate etc.
It's what they leave out and don't show you that matters.
I think they simply have more cells in parallel off-camera, and they are just showing one small pouch cell. So everyone just assumes it's all going into that one cell, and ergo they aren't lying, you are just misled by your own assumption.
-
That's the thing, I don't think it's "fake" as such.
I think the camera really is pointing at PSU screen and it's really delivering that, and the time is accurate etc.
It's what they leave out and don't show you that matters.
And, when the time is up they will most likely mull the specs in Eric Cartman's style.
-
Water is the lowest-energy, stable combination of hydrogen and oxygen. You cannot extract any more energy from it, at least chemically (but you can in a fusion reactor).
Nonsense. I have a motor which produces 10kWh of energy out of a liter of water. It produces hydrogen and oxygen out of water, extracting 5kWh of energy, then it combines those back to water, producing another 5kWh of energy. I'm manufacturing this at abandoned warehouse, I'm already planning to build fences around it. You can already buy this. Just buy it for 40000€ from me and I'm going to send it to you in two months. Trust me bro, can't be scam, what would be the financial gain?
-
I thought the Li stuff was plentiful, easy to get at, and easy to convert into a energy dense toxic batt pack, which by now should be driving down prices on a daily basis. I guess we were lied to.
Lithium is plentiful in the earth's crust, and indeed the oceans. It's the cobalt needed in the cathode, that is problematic.
-
Nonsense. I have a motor which produces 10kWh of energy out of a liter of water. It produces hydrogen and oxygen out of water, extracting 5kWh of energy, then it combines those back to water, producing another 5kWh of energy. I'm manufacturing this at abandoned warehouse, I'm already planning to build fences around it. You can already buy this. Just buy it for 40000€ from me and I'm going to send it to you in two months. Trust me bro, can't be scam, what would be the financial gain?
Don't answer that knock on your door. Run out the back and keep running.
-
I think there is no reason for debating if we agree Donut's "charging demo" clip is s fake. If this was a fake, everything else is likely to be the same.
I have no idea why would they want this fake. Did not they realize engineers would be looking at it?
That's the thing, I don't think it's "fake" as such.
I think the camera really is pointing at PSU screen and it's really delivering that, and the time is accurate etc.
It's what they leave out and don't show you that matters.
I think they simply have more cells in parallel off-camera, and they are just showing one small pouch cell. So everyone just assumes it's all going into that one cell, and ergo they aren't lying, you are just misled by your own assumption.
I am not disputing the camera thing, certainly it was a real power supply but that does not change anything because we do not see the complete setup, just pieces of it. What i am saying is that the fact that current and voltage did not change during the "charging" to 82% can only mean one thing: the power supply was connected to a dummmy load off screen. It does not matter how many cells were connected in parallel - during a real charging from zero to 82% either the voltage or current would have changed, and that did not happen. This is why the demo is a fraud.
-
I think there is no reason for debating if we agree Donut's "charging demo" clip is s fake. If this was a fake, everything else is likely to be the same.
I have no idea why would they want this fake. Did not they realize engineers would be looking at it?
That's the thing, I don't think it's "fake" as such.
I think the camera really is pointing at PSU screen and it's really delivering that, and the time is accurate etc.
It's what they leave out and don't show you that matters.
I think they simply have more cells in parallel off-camera, and they are just showing one small pouch cell. So everyone just assumes it's all going into that one cell, and ergo they aren't lying, you are just misled by your own assumption.
I am not disputing the camera thing, certainly it was a real power supply but that does not change anything because we do not see the complete setup, just pieces of it. What i am saying is that the fact that current and voltage did not change during the "charging" to 82% can only mean one thing: the power supply was connected to a dummmy load off screen. It does not matter how many cells were connected in parallel - during a real charging from zero to 82% either the voltage or current would have changed, and that did not happen. This is why the demo is a fraud.
We don't know the SOC-V curve of the battery.
If you would see the curve of a LFP battery, going from 3.1V to 3.2V from 20% to 80%, you could call it fraud, if your only reference is an NMC battery.
-
I doubt that would be legally enforceable. But I'm sure a competitor would do it anyway and take the minimal risk involved.
Or more likely, they would hire an outside consultant to do it and provide a report. There are a ton of legal and practical advantages to doing it that way. For one, that consultant can sell the report to a dozen automakers for the cost of a single teardown. It also makes it easier to insulate your engineers against knowingly violating any patents by directly copying the competitor. And it can be easier for a small contractor to buy a product without being noticed or doing something deceptive.
-
I doubt that would be legally enforceable. But I'm sure a competitor would do it anyway and take the minimal risk involved.
Or more likely, they would hire an outside consultant to do it and provide a report. There are a ton of legal and practical advantages to doing it that way. For one, that consultant can sell the report to a dozen automakers for the cost of a single teardown. It also makes it easier to insulate your engineers against knowingly violating any patents by directly copying the competitor. And it can be easier for a small contractor to buy a product without being noticed or doing something deceptive.
Indeed and around 15 years ago I was the engineering guy people paid to evaluate new technology.
It was pretty cool, $50/hr all expenses paid, I fly in and do my testing to evaluate the technology then fly back and write a report. Not run of the mill tech but the exotic stuff nobody else had a clue how to evaluate. The man of last resort if you will. Of course, everything was under NDA's and I assumed no liability.
It was neat and I got to see a lot of the wild stuff that nobody ever hears about.
-
I thought the Li stuff was plentiful, easy to get at, and easy to convert into a energy dense toxic batt pack, which by now should be driving down prices on a daily basis. I guess we were lied to.
Lithium is plentiful in the earth's crust, and indeed the oceans. It's the cobalt needed in the cathode, that is problematic.
Plentiful?
30mil metric ton is what's there.
That only makes 500mil Tesla3 vehicles (60kg Li per batt pack).
About 1.644bil vehicles worldwide.
You'll be short about 1bil vehicles with that little bit of Lithium.
You can up the number by making the batts (range) much lower though. Cut Tesla3 range in half, that will get you 1bil Tesla3 batts.
Factor in the recycle pile of Lithium, it cannot scale into the world demand, and, having all that 30mil ton of toxic Li out there (in-use) is not good.
Supercaps are next best fad (lithium killer), after that it's all H.
If the Donut folks (they dont have Wheel or Dunkin in their name, do they?) have a supercap that works, so be it. Is it better than Chery's, probably not.
-
What i am saying is that the fact that current and voltage did not change during the "charging" to 82% can only mean one thing: the power supply was connected to a dummmy load off screen. It does not matter how many cells were connected in parallel - during a real charging from zero to 82% either the voltage or current would have changed, and that did not happen. This is why the demo is a fraud.
It does go from 2.7V to 4.2V when charging, read my post.
You can find LCO charge curves that are very flat.
-
Now post a chart that shows a flat current AND flat voltage at the same time cycle.
-
Now post a chart that shows a flat current AND flat voltage at the same time cycle.
If I had that I'd have a chart of their supposed specific battery chemistry, which I doubt exists.
The current is limited by the supply to 270A, and its normal for li-ion to sit at CC until 60-80% charge.
Anyway, here is an interesting comparison, graphene aluminum-ion tech: 10k cycles, 150Wh/kg "some day", 10C charge rate.
https://graphenemg.com/gmg-unveils-graphene-aluminium-ion-battery-that-fully-charges-in-6-minutes/
But you can see the voltage curve is very different, and real world capacity is only 58Wh/kg so far.
-
I thought the Li stuff was plentiful, easy to get at, and easy to convert into a energy dense toxic batt pack, which by now should be driving down prices on a daily basis. I guess we were lied to.
Lithium is plentiful in the earth's crust, and indeed the oceans. It's the cobalt needed in the cathode, that is problematic.
Plentiful?
30mil metric ton is what's there.
That only makes 500mil Tesla3 vehicles (60kg Li per batt pack).
About 1.644bil vehicles worldwide.
You'll be short about 1bil vehicles with that little bit of Lithium.
You can up the number by making the batts (range) much lower though. Cut Tesla3 range in half, that will get you 1bil Tesla3 batts.
Factor in the recycle pile of Lithium, it cannot scale into the world demand, and, having all that 30mil ton of toxic Li out there (in-use) is not good.
Supercaps are next best fad (lithium killer), after that it's all H.
If the Donut folks (they dont have Wheel or Dunkin in their name, do they?) have a supercap that works, so be it. Is it better than Chery's, probably not.
Well, it took about 100 years to scale up ICE technology to where it's at and it's still only 35% efficient at best :-DD. It's kind of a joke as far as efficiency goes if we include all the infrastructure, waste and pollution from drilling a well to our gas tank. In Alberta we have field after field of abandoned wells nobody wants to take responsibility for rotting in the ground. In Texas they say half the ground water that's still left is polluted. It's a real shit show.
Hydrogen ain't going anywhere and it's a scam. It burns near invisible and is highly explosive. It makes gasoline look like candle wax by comparison. Lithium may burn but if you have a hydrogen leak and one little spark it will scatter car parts for blocks.
Here is a good real life example of what happens when a hydrogen tank explodes. It blew out windows 100' away.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMKvfK2KM34 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMKvfK2KM34)
2 injured after hydrogen tank explosion inside pickup truck at Henry Ford Hospital
-
30mil metric ton is what's there.
180 bilion tons in the oceans, minimum, are the numbers I have seen. Lithium in the oceans is as good an inexhaustable supply asnthere is, it takes a lot of work to get it though.
-
30mil metric ton is what's there.
180 bilion tons in the oceans, minimum, are the numbers I have seen. Lithium in the oceans is as good an inexhaustable supply asnthere is, it takes a lot of work to get it though.
I read seawater has 0.2 parts Li per million, 230bil tons total, but filtering all the seawater is an impossible task. Considering such extraction at-scale has no existing path fwd, it's likely not gonna happen given other tech is available. Perhaps TBD, but I highly doubt anyone will pursue it.
There is a carbon foortprint to look at, for everything. I know there's also a lot of land destruction to get Li.
Mining equip should be loaded with huge Li batts and charged by sunlight in daytime, and then ran at night, OR, everything charged by small onsite nuke plant power.
1) amount of material available
2) carbon footprint per metric ton
3) earth destruction (whatever unit this may be)
4) cost per metric ton
1-4 also applies to the materials in supercaps. Supercaps appear preferable in application, but can they scale? Graphene at-scale is currently also a challenge, but innovation has basically just started.
IMHO, from available data, Li is basically on it's way out.
-
Well, it took about 100 years to scale up ICE technology to where it's at and it's still only 35% efficient at best :-DD. It's kind of a joke as far as efficiency goes if we include all the infrastructure, waste and pollution from drilling a well to our gas tank. In Alberta we have field after field of abandoned wells nobody wants to take responsibility for rotting in the ground. In Texas they say half the ground water that's still left is polluted. It's a real shit show.
Hydrogen ain't going anywhere and it's a scam. It burns near invisible and is highly explosive. It makes gasoline look like candle wax by comparison. Lithium may burn but if you have a hydrogen leak and one little spark it will scatter car parts for blocks.
Here is a good real life example of what happens when a hydrogen tank explodes. It blew out windows 100' away.
2 injured after hydrogen tank explosion inside pickup truck at Henry Ford Hospital
ICE is 40% currently, but that number has minimal footprint.
And agreed, there is an end-to-end wrapper to look at, which was not yest discussed for Li batts. The other half for batts, Li or caps or whatever, is where does all the electrons come from and how will you deliver it. Nuke power is the only feasible way to make all that needed power, and, the power delivery system worldwide needs to basically be rebuilt.
There's not enough data currently to determine overall safety of H tank in vehicle. One good thing for H, is that the current infrastructure for transmitting natural gas can be retrofitted to move H (blending and then separation at endpoints). Transmitting 100% H needs new infrastructure.
Surely challenges there to be solved.
Side note: Related to end-to-end, I keep asking but cannot find answer. Is it better to use paper plates at home, use and garbage recycle, OR, use my std lifetime glassware plates and clean them in sink or dishwasher (requires water/soap/electric/sewer etc)? Which one is better overall for the environment (earth), the end-to-end view?
-
30mil metric ton is what's there.
180 bilion tons in the oceans, minimum, are the numbers I have seen. Lithium in the oceans is as good an inexhaustable supply asnthere is, it takes a lot of work to get it though.
I read seawater has 0.2 parts Li per million, 230bil tons total, but filtering all the seawater is an impossible task. Considering such extraction at-scale has no existing path fwd, it's likely not gonna happen given other tech is available. Perhaps TBD, but I highly doubt anyone will pursue it.
There is a carbon foortprint to look at, for everything. I know there's also a lot of land destruction to get Li.
Mining equip should be loaded with huge Li batts and charged by sunlight in daytime, and then ran at night, OR, everything charged by small onsite nuke plant power.
1) amount of material available
2) carbon footprint per metric ton
3) earth destruction (whatever unit this may be)
4) cost per metric ton
1-4 also applies to the materials in supercaps. Supercaps appear preferable in application, but can they scale? Graphene at-scale is currently also a challenge, but innovation has basically just started.
IMHO, from available data, Li is basically on it's way out.
The usual shortsighted argument. Almost nowhere nobody takes into account Li recycling. Copper and Al have 60...80% recycling rate in the worst cases. Even better in the best cases. If Li extracted mow is reused for 1 century at 80% recycling rate would it have worth its currently energy intensive digging and processing ? By how much ?
-
I thought the Li stuff was plentiful, easy to get at, and easy to convert into a energy dense toxic batt pack, which by now should be driving down prices on a daily basis. I guess we were lied to.
Lithium is plentiful in the earth's crust, and indeed the oceans. It's the cobalt needed in the cathode, that is problematic.
Plentiful?
30mil metric ton is what's there.
That only makes 500mil Tesla3 vehicles (60kg Li per batt pack).
About 1.644bil vehicles worldwide.
You'll be short about 1bil vehicles with that little bit of Lithium.
You can up the number by making the batts (range) much lower though. Cut Tesla3 range in half, that will get you 1bil Tesla3 batts.
Factor in the recycle pile of Lithium, it cannot scale into the world demand, and, having all that 30mil ton of toxic Li out there (in-use) is not good.
Supercaps are next best fad (lithium killer), after that it's all H.
If the Donut folks (they dont have Wheel or Dunkin in their name, do they?) have a supercap that works, so be it. Is it better than Chery's, probably not.
Please provide citations for your claims. A cursory search reveals global resources to be around three times what you claim, and increasing.
https://iere.org/how-much-lithium-is-on-earth/ (https://iere.org/how-much-lithium-is-on-earth/)
https://aenert.com/fileadmin/default/templates/images/Energy_Landscape/250209_Lithium/250208Lithium2024en.pdf (https://aenert.com/fileadmin/default/templates/images/Energy_Landscape/250209_Lithium/250208Lithium2024en.pdf)
https://www.statista.com/topics/3217/lithium/#editorsPicks (https://www.statista.com/topics/3217/lithium/#editorsPicks)
30mil metric ton is what's there.
180 bilion tons in the oceans, minimum, are the numbers I have seen. Lithium in the oceans is as good an inexhaustable supply asnthere is, it takes a lot of work to get it though.
I read seawater has 0.2 parts Li per million, 230bil tons total, but filtering all the seawater is an impossible task. Considering such extraction at-scale has no existing path fwd, it's likely not gonna happen given other tech is available. Perhaps TBD, but I highly doubt anyone will pursue it.
There is a carbon foortprint to look at, for everything. I know there's also a lot of land destruction to get Li.
Mining equip should be loaded with huge Li batts and charged by sunlight in daytime, and then ran at night, OR, everything charged by small onsite nuke plant power.
1) amount of material available
2) carbon footprint per metric ton
3) earth destruction (whatever unit this may be)
4) cost per metric ton
1-4 also applies to the materials in supercaps. Supercaps appear preferable in application, but can they scale? Graphene at-scale is currently also a challenge, but innovation has basically just started.
IMHO, from available data, Li is basically on it's way out.
It's not filtered, it's recovered by evaporating brines. Five minutes of research would have revealed these facts to you.
-
Here is a good real life example of what happens when a hydrogen tank explodes. It blew out windows 100' away.
I wonder if the hydrogen actually combusted. Hydrogen is typically stored at around 10,000psi when it is in portable tanks. I don't know - just thinking out loud if there would be enough energy to do that level of damage purely due to the pressure.
Obviously hydrogen has to mix with oxygen before it will combust, so the only hydrogen that can burn is that which has leaked out of the tank. Clearly a leak plus a spark can cause the leaked hydrogen to burn. But then what? If the explosion is big enough to damage the tank, hydrogen will be released en masse. But because it needs to mix with oxygen, I would imagine a rapid burn after the initial explosion, rather than a bigger explosion. If it didn’t damage the tank, then a flame at the point of the leak?
I know nothing about the physics of explosions, as you can see! But I just wonder - was it just the tank splitting apart explosively, with no actual combustion?
-
Here is a good real life example of what happens when a hydrogen tank explodes. It blew out windows 100' away.
I wonder if the hydrogen actually combusted. Hydrogen is typically stored at around 10,000psi when it is in portable tanks. I don't know - just thinking out loud if there would be enough energy to do that level of damage purely due to the pressure.
Obviously hydrogen has to mix with oxygen before it will combust, so the only hydrogen that can burn is that which has leaked out of the tank. Clearly a leak plus a spark can cause the leaked hydrogen to burn. But then what? If the explosion is big enough to damage the tank, hydrogen will be released en masse. But because it needs to mix with oxygen, I would imagine a rapid burn after the initial explosion, rather than a bigger explosion. If it didn’t damage the tank, then a flame at the point of the leak?
I know nothing about the physics of explosions, as you can see! But I just wonder - was it just the tank splitting apart explosively, with no actual combustion?
Have you ever tried to collect hydrogen (from a chemical reaction or electrolysis) in a test tube and burn it? It's pretty scary even at that scale, I can tell you. It won't burn slowly, it's pretty much an explosion.
-
Have you ever tried to collect hydrogen (from a chemical reaction or electrolysis) in a test tube and burn it? It's pretty scary even at that scale, I can tell you. It won't burn slowly, it's pretty much an explosion.
Not to mention, the amount of electrical energy to set it on fire is crazy small. Like shorting out a tiny 0603 ceramic capacitor makes a spark enough to explode it. And some people want us to use this as heating out homes. They are crazy, or don't understand the risks.
-
Here is a good real life example of what happens when a hydrogen tank explodes. It blew out windows 100' away.
I wonder if the hydrogen actually combusted. Hydrogen is typically stored at around 10,000psi when it is in portable tanks. I don't know - just thinking out loud if there would be enough energy to do that level of damage purely due to the pressure.
Obviously hydrogen has to mix with oxygen before it will combust, so the only hydrogen that can burn is that which has leaked out of the tank. Clearly a leak plus a spark can cause the leaked hydrogen to burn. But then what? If the explosion is big enough to damage the tank, hydrogen will be released en masse. But because it needs to mix with oxygen, I would imagine a rapid burn after the initial explosion, rather than a bigger explosion. If it didn’t damage the tank, then a flame at the point of the leak?
I know nothing about the physics of explosions, as you can see! But I just wonder - was it just the tank splitting apart explosively, with no actual combustion?
I have a bit of first hand experience with hydrogen when I was testing water electrolyser setups. I have an acreage and I'm a little redneck so it made sense to fill a sealed 5 gal pail with hydrogen gas and ignite it to see what actually happens. Well, it exploded and scattered pieces of plastic all over my yard.
We need the proper air fuel mixture but the explosion relates more to confinement imo. Liquid gasoline on the ground burns slow but vaporize it in a 50 gal barrel and it explodes tearing it to pieces. Hydrogen is always vaporized when it leaves a vessel which is much more dangerous than gasoline.
It's funny, the car makers and hydrogen buffs always try to show liquid gasoline burning or a hydrogen tank venting which is disingenuous. Where in reality it's a slow leak within a confined space igniting then exploding which is the real danger.
-
The usual shortsighted argument. Almost nowhere nobody takes into account Li recycling. Copper and Al have 60...80% recycling rate in the worst cases. Even better in the best cases. If Li extracted mow is reused for 1 century at 80% recycling rate would it have worth its currently energy intensive digging and processing ? By how much ?
You misunderstood my recycling comment.
You are talking about how much waste Li goes back into new product.
I was talking about how big the recycling pile is at any given time, hence Li that is not being used.
-
Please provide citations for your claims. A cursory search reveals global resources to be around three times what you claim, and increasing.
30mil metric ton is what's there.
I over-estimated the total,.... my bad. Also, current world extraction (2023) is only a dismal 180k ton. From extraction to application, Li does not scale.
Did the Canad folks get it wrong?
https://natural-resources.canada.ca/minerals-mining/mining-data-statistics-analysis/minerals-metals-facts/lithium-facts
-
The usual shortsighted argument. Almost nowhere nobody takes into account Li recycling. Copper and Al have 60...80% recycling rate in the worst cases. Even better in the best cases. If Li extracted mow is reused for 1 century at 80% recycling rate would it have worth its currently energy intensive digging and processing ? By how much ?
You misunderstood my recycling comment.
You are talking about how much waste Li goes back into new product.
I was talking about how big the recycling pile is at any given time, hence Li that is not being used.
This reminds me of the recycling scam.
We used to have recycling bins and everyone made the effort to separate everything into neat little piles. Oh yes, we were saving the world. Then we found out nobody had a clue how to recycle everything and were exporting the material to poor countries or burying it in a landfill. Here we need to be clear the real problem is people not being intelligent enough to solve the problems they created. Now I save a great deal of time and effort by just taking everything to the landfill.
Landfills are wild, where I live they filled in a giant coulee between two hills with garbage over 100 feet deep. Mountains and mountains of toxic garbage just rotting in the ground. The engineers were brilliant making this giant landfill only 500 meters from a beautiful river and not one drop will ever leak. Yep... we got it all figured out.
-
I've just googled some interesting information about hydrogen combustibility.
Lower flammability limit: 4% hydrogen in air by volume
Upper flammability limit: 75% hydrogen in air by volume.
Ignition energy: 0.02mJ
This is an unusually wide flammability range, and an unusually low ignition energy, making hydrogen dangerous compared with many other gases.
It's detonation range is a bit narrower, at 18% to 59%.
So as Electrodynamic alludes to: it's dodgy stuff.
-
Now I save a great deal of time and effort by just taking everything to the landfill.
Good you have that option to just diy. When i bought my house, the city was running waste collection every week with no limit. Now they do it once every two weeks and only take 3 garbage items. Recycling stuff they take weekly though, so it makes sence to people to separate "recycling" waste , so they can get rid of junk quicker. Where recycling waste goes and what happens to it nobody know.
-
Now I save a great deal of time and effort by just taking everything to the landfill.
Good you have that option to just diy. When i bought my house, the city was running waste collection every week with no limit. Now they do it once every two weeks and only take 3 garbage items. Recycling stuff they take weekly though, so it makes sence to people to separate "recycling" waste , so they can get rid of junk quicker. Where recycling waste goes and what happens to it nobody know.
I currently only recycle two things: paper and metal.
Plastic is out since here, as in probably many places, it just goes into the landfill.
i know this both from asking someone at the recycling facility and from this article from a credible source, which explains why plastic recycling (at least here in the US) is basically a crock of shit:
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/897692090/how-big-oil-misled-the-public-into-believing-plastic-would-be-recycled (https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/897692090/how-big-oil-misled-the-public-into-believing-plastic-would-be-recycled)
Glass used to be recyclable at this facility (Waste Management). But a couple months ago they took away their big collection bin and put up notices saying they were no longer accepting any glass.
They said you could take your glass to a county facility, but guess what happens to it there?
It gets crushed and used as roadbuilding material. Kinda-sorta recycling, I guess.
I just don't bother with it any more. Into the landfill!
I think that the paper and metal I schlep over there gets recycled, but who the hell really knows?
-
I think if they want to play with the big boys in this field, they need to change name, "Donut Lab" just not cutting it.
(https://myimgs.org/storage/images/16428/dinut-lab.jpg)
-
I think if they want to play with the big boys in this field, they need to change name, "Donut Lab" just not cutting it.
Ah, but grasshopper, we're in the upside-down bizarro age of the 21st century, where the company with the goofy name wins.
Like "Google".
-
Glass used to be recyclable at this facility (Waste Management). But a couple months ago they took away their big collection bin and put up notices saying they were no longer accepting any glass.
They said you could take your glass to a county facility, but guess what happens to it there?
It gets crushed and used as roadbuilding material. Kinda-sorta recycling, I guess.
I just don't bother with it any more. Into the landfill!
Because an empty glass vessel is mostly air, you should crush your glass bottles so they don't take up as much volume if sent to landfill.
But crushing glass poses a safety hazard! This is a good reason NOT to send it to landfill yourself.
I persist with rubbish sorting because it's zero effort by me, but pays big dividends at the recycling facility. Even if the sorted material goes to landfill, it has NOT wasted my time.
-
Glass used to be recyclable at this facility (Waste Management). But a couple months ago they took away their big collection bin and put up notices saying they were no longer accepting any glass.
They said you could take your glass to a county facility, but guess what happens to it there?
It gets crushed and used as roadbuilding material. Kinda-sorta recycling, I guess.
I just don't bother with it any more. Into the landfill!
Because an empty glass vessel is mostly air, you should crush your glass bottles so they don't take up as much volume if sent to landfill.
But crushing glass poses a safety hazard! This is a good reason NOT to send it to landfill yourself.
I persist with rubbish sorting because it's zero effort by me, but pays big dividends at the recycling facility. Even if the sorted material goes to landfill, it has NOT wasted my time.
A glass recycling truck can easily carry a glass crusher. Problem solved.
Recycling has become more expensive for same product. I am not paying $1 more for 8 rolls made from "recycled materials" to wipe my butt.
Also, Li is just too costly. Went to a store today to get some 9v batts for smoke detector, the Li items were 3x more expensive. My current no-name batt lasted 4 years, I can buy 12yrs worth for same cost as the Li batt.
-
A glass recycling truck can easily carry a glass crusher. Problem solved.
Which still requires the consumer to separate their glass waste from their landfill waste!
-
Recycling has become more expensive for same product. I am not paying $1 more for 8 rolls made from "recycled materials" to wipe my butt.
Hell, that's not even available--anywhere--where I live.
I had a hard time finding it even when I lived in the Bay Area.
And yes, I'd pay that buck extra for recycled. (Post-consumer, not pre, which is BS.)
Why wipe one's butt with virgin pulp? Makes no sense.
-
Why wipe one's butt with virgin pulp? Makes no sense.
On that note, people should shift away from toilet paper and use bidets. Sure, the energy capital to manufacture a bidet is extremely expensive compared to paper. But over (albeit long) time, the resource savings will add up.
-
Please provide citations for your claims. A cursory search reveals global resources to be around three times what you claim, and increasing.
30mil metric ton is what's there.
I over-estimated the total,.... my bad. Also, current world extraction (2023) is only a dismal 180k ton. From extraction to application, Li does not scale.
Did the Canad folks get it wrong?
https://natural-resources.canada.ca/minerals-mining/mining-data-statistics-analysis/minerals-metals-facts/lithium-facts (https://natural-resources.canada.ca/minerals-mining/mining-data-statistics-analysis/minerals-metals-facts/lithium-facts)
You need to learn to cite multiple sources; three different ones are generally considered a minimum. You also need to learn to interpret trends. 2024 world production was around 244k metric tonnes (an increase of around 33% over 2023), and is set to continue to increase, as demand rises.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/lithium-production?tab=line (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/lithium-production?tab=line)
https://thundersaidenergy.com/downloads/global-lithium-production-by-project-by-country-by-resource/ (https://thundersaidenergy.com/downloads/global-lithium-production-by-project-by-country-by-resource/)
https://www.iea.org/reports/lithium-2 (https://www.iea.org/reports/lithium-2)
-
On Lithium and rare earth minerals.
It's only a short term issue because superior technology has already been developed and proven. We have super capacitor and battery technology which doesn't require lithium and brushless rare earth free electric motors and generators.
So the notion anyone needs to take over a corporation or country to secure these resources is BS. It's just a short term problem with a proven alternate solution.
The problem where to invest is bigger than most think. For example, if you enroll in a four year university tech course much of what you learned may be obsolete by the time you graduate. That's how fast technology is making progress.
-
You need to learn to cite multiple sources; three different ones are generally considered a minimum. You also need to learn to interpret trends. 2024 world production was around 244k metric tonnes (an increase of around 33% over 2023), and is set to continue to increase, as demand rises.
Ok, I did digging, 30mil tons (the easy to get to stuff) is about same number everywhere.
If we take the existing 2024 of 244k/yr, that's just 122yrs worth of mining. As the yearly rate increases the totla years of availability will decrease substantially. If the demand to mining rate equalizes, say tech can only pull out 500k per year, the supply of Li will soon not be able to meet demans, and at some point within next 50-100yrs the Li supply has been depleted.
I can analyse Li from all angles, it's not scalable, and, not cost effective. Supercaps do a way better job.
-
Proven reserves are a moving target.
-
Proven reserves are a moving target.
How much does the world have easy access to today, and how much land destruction is required to get that Li.
How much Li is in places we can't mine just yet, like oceans, and how long will it take to innovate the tech needed to get it?
We must remember, we are not reducing the amount of kJ we humans use on a daily basis, that # just goes up day after day, and Li or caps or even H makes no diff in that math. We can perhaps reduce wasted kJ, but those efforts cost more money, AND, the math does not indicate that any new tech makes a big dent in savings.
2nd, NASA already proved much of Earth's temp rise is from sun solar flares. Humans cannot fix that problem. With Earth getting warmer the weather pattern (bandwidth) increases, cold seasons colder, hot seasons hotter. Maybe one day some whack scientists get to cover LEO with aerosol of aluminum microdust, which will reflect UV and some side bands, then after that all the crops die and other weird stuff happens.
Anyways, Dunking caps are neat, but nothing exciting there.
In that vid, is the 270A passing through #14 wire?
-
2nd, NASA already proved much of Earth's temp rise is from sun solar flares. Humans cannot fix that problem. With Earth getting warmer the weather pattern (bandwidth) increases, cold seasons colder, hot seasons hotter. Maybe one day some whack scientists get to cover LEO with aerosol of aluminum microdust, which will reflect UV and some side bands, then after that all the crops die and other weird stuff happens.
It lifts my soul to read such an optimistic and inspiring vision of the future! :-DD
Nice one, mate!
-
Were we not discussing the merits or otherwise of a solid state battery, how did this thread get to arguring about lithium reserves, glass recycling, and the causes of climate change.
Good grief.
-
Thread drift "Я" us!
(pronounced "thread drift ya us")
-
Were we not discussing the merits or otherwise of a solid state battery, how did this thread get to arguring about lithium reserves, glass recycling, and the causes of climate change.
Good grief.
I think because of it's applications, and that Li is dead tech, while supercaps have good future before all that dies for H.
The other issue is, they calling it a "solid state battery", and it's neither a battery nor solid state. The Dunkin folks need to call it what it is, a supercap, AND, considering what Chery and others already have out there, the Dunkin stuff does not appear to be breakthrough tech. Although I will admit, to-market and %market are meaningful metrics, and can make/break a company when there's competition in the field.
-
Thread drift "Я" us!
At a certain point its not drift, its conspiracy and anti-EV nutters shitting on good quality technical threads.
-
I think if they want to play with the big boys in this field, they need to change name, "Donut Lab" just not cutting it.
Just look at their CEO, the company name is a good match.
-
I think if they want to play with the big boys in this field, they need to change name, "Donut Lab" just not cutting it.
Just look at their CEO, the company name is a good match.
(https://media3.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExc3BkemdkaHp4N3J1aGVjdHZrMm80b2x4cnRoZGFzZmFxYnQ1NG9mZyZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/V5m9x8qOcHarVkXhtC/giphy.gif)
-
Thread drift "Я" us!
At a certain point its not drift, its conspiracy and anti-EV nutters shitting on good quality technical threads.
Ofc. And the Hindenburg zeppelin disaster was a terrible sabotage of a really good tech.
-
Thread drift "Я" us!
At a certain point its not drift, its conspiracy and anti-EV nutters shitting on good quality technical threads.
Ofc. And the Hindenburg zeppelin disaster was a terrible sabotage of a really good tech.
In a way, it was. The US was the principal supplier of helium at the time, and refused to sell any to Germany due to the actions of the Nazi party. Hence they had to use hydrogen instead.
-
Thread drift "Я" us!
At a certain point its not drift, its conspiracy and anti-EV nutters shitting on good quality technical threads.
Ofc. And the Hindenburg zeppelin disaster was a terrible sabotage of a really good tech.
In a way, it was. The US was the principal supplier of helium at the time, and refused to sell any to Germany due to the actions of the Nazi party. Hence they had to use hydrogen instead.
That I didn't knew. Thanks.
-
The Dunkin folks need to call it what it is, a supercap, AND, considering what Chery and others already have out there, the Dunkin stuff does not appear to be breakthrough tech.
So, are we absolutely certain that the Donut Lab battery definitely is a supercap? And if so, is it feasible that it performs as claimed?
-
The Dunkin folks need to call it what it is, a supercap, AND, considering what Chery and others already have out there, the Dunkin stuff does not appear to be breakthrough tech.
So, are we absolutely certain that the Donut Lab battery definitely is a supercap? And if so, is it feasible that it performs as claimed?
It does not need to be either and can be both.
If there is a chemical reaction it's a battery
If energy is stored as an electric field it's a capacitor
If there is a chemical reaction and energy is also stored as an electric field then it's both
-
It's almost certainly just a scam, with Nordic Nano using existing EU research directions (non toxic, abundant minerals, biological sourced carbon, etc) to position itself.
A durable 100+ Wh/kg electrode material for metal ion supercaps would be revolutionary.
-
Putting a smidge of chemical reaction into a a graphene supercap, does not make it a battery. It makes it a supercap with a smidge of chemical reaction.
Given the size and density of the item, how could it not be a supercap? Can an alkaline-like or Li batt be made to that size & density?
From all the definitions I can find, they all talk about "primary operating mechanism". So if the supercap is 2% chemical and 98% cap, then it's a cap.
-
From all the definitions I can find, they all talk about "primary operating mechanism". So if the supercap is 2% chemical and 98% cap, then it's a cap.
Papers about hybrids are generally capacitive cathode, chemical anode. So 50/50.
-
From all the definitions I can find, they all talk about "primary operating mechanism". So if the supercap is 2% chemical and 98% cap, then it's a cap.
Papers about hybrids are generally capacitive cathode, chemical anode. So 50/50.
Ok, in that case, it's neither. It's a hybrid.
But, hybrid configurations can reach energy densities of around 89.6 Wh/kg and power densities of up to 16 kW/kg.
Mr Donut says the thingy is ~500Wh/kg ? So it's not a hybrid?
Did I miss something?
-
Given the size and density of the item, how could it not be a supercap? Can an alkaline-like or Li batt be made to that size & density?
May I ask what you mean by "density"? Do you mean the electrical capacity per kilogram (or possibly per unit volume)?
If so, I thought supercaps were nowhere close to the energy density of a lithium battery. Is that wrong?
Another thing: if the performance is as good as claimed, does it matter whether it is a supercap, or a solid state battery, or a normal lithium battery?
Sor for the basic questions - I have zero expertise in this area.
-
But, hybrid configurations can reach energy densities of around 89.6 Wh/kg and power densities of up to 16 kW/kg.
Mr Donut says the thingy is ~500Wh/kg ? So it's not a hybrid?
Did I miss something?
- 400Wh/kg was claimed, not 500.
- 150-244Wh/kg is seen for hybrid supercaps in the lab: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.4c02984
-
Maybe I am missing something so may I ask the audience what is the capacitance of existing supercapacitors and what is their voltage rating.
A little mind exercise: what would be the capacitance of a supercapacitor to match the energy storage of a 22.5Ah mystery cell ?
The cell energy capacity would be: 4.2V (nominal) * 22.5Ah * 3600 = 340.2 KJ.
A supercap charged at nominal voltage would have to be: 2 * 340.2 KJ / (4.2 V^2) = 38.571 kF (kilo Farad)!
Charged at 100V ---> 68.04 F.
Charged at 1kV ---> 0.6804 F.
Do such supercapacitors in the range of hundreds of thousands of Farad even exist rated at 4V ? And if they do, what is their physical size and weight ?
In the much spoken video we are shown a 4V cell. Any comment ?
---
Later edit: redo the numbers with a rough estimate of the cell shown in the video: 270A * 5 minutes / 3600 = 22.5Ah.
-
Thread drift "Я" us!
At a certain point its not drift, its conspiracy and anti-EV nutters shitting on good quality technical threads.
You forgot to mention the free-energy nutters, there are more than a few of them on this forum too.
-
Maybe I am missing something so may I ask the audience what is the capacitance of existing supercapacitors and what is their voltage rating.
A little mind exercise: what would be the capacitance of a supercapacitor to match the energy storage of a 100Ah LFP cell ?
The cell energy capacity would be: 3.29V (nominal) * 100Ah * 3600 = 1.1844 MJ.
A supercap charged at nominal voltage would have to be: 2 * 1.1844 MJ / (3.29 V^2) = 218.844 kF (kilo Farad)!
Charged at 100V ---> 663.264 F.
Charged at 1kV ---> 2.3688 F.
Do such supercapacitors in the range of hundreds of thousands of Farad even exist rated at 4V ? And if they do, what is their physical size and weight ?
In the much spoken video we are shown a 4V cell. Any comment ?
I don't know, but since we're already off topic and talking about super caps I'd like to ask this: What is the near term possibility of developing super caps with more than a ~2.7 volts per cell?
Note that ~ is there for a reason! I see no reason to argue about if the present limit is 2.4 volts, 2.7 volts, 3.2 volts or any other minor difference. I'm asking about a significant voltage increase.
-
Given the size and density of the item, how could it not be a supercap? Can an alkaline-like or Li batt be made to that size & density?
May I ask what you mean by "density"? Do you mean the electrical capacity per kilogram (or possibly per unit volume)?
If so, I thought supercaps were nowhere close to the energy density of a lithium battery. Is that wrong?
Another thing: if the performance is as good as claimed, does it matter whether it is a supercap, or a solid state battery, or a normal lithium battery?
Sor for the basic questions - I have zero expertise in this area.
Energy per kg. Wh/kg.
I think supercaps now leapfrog Li batts.
Lithium-ion battery energy density typically ranges from 150 to 250 Wh/kg for commercial applications, with advanced chemistries pushing higher.
Current commercial batteries: ~350 Wh/kg (e.g., NMC, NCA, and nickel-rich cathodes).
Theoretical limit: 400–500 Wh/kg, challenging to achieve due to safety and cycle life trade-offs.
- 400Wh/kg was claimed, not 500.
- 150-244Wh/kg is seen for hybrid supercaps in the lab: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.4c02984
My bad, Dunkin has the 400 item.
Chery has 600Wh/kg.
I state again, to-market and %market makes things happen. If Donut gets their 400 out into everything and Chery 600 only gets into a few items.... etc etc.
-
Maybe I am missing something so may I ask the audience what is the capacitance of existing supercapacitors and what is their voltage rating.
A little mind exercise: what would be the capacitance of a supercapacitor to match the energy storage of a 22.5Ah mystery cell ?
The cell energy capacity would be: 4.2V (nominal) * 22.5Ah * 3600 = 340.2 KJ.
A supercap charged at nominal voltage would have to be: 2 * 340.2 KJ / (4.2 V^2) = 38.571 kF (kilo Farad)!
Charged at 100V ---> 68.04 F.
Charged at 1kV ---> 0.6804 F.
Do such supercapacitors in the range of hundreds of thousands of Farad even exist rated at 4V ? And if they do, what is their physical size and weight ?
In the much spoken video we are shown a 4V cell. Any comment ?
---
Later edit: redo the numbers with a rough estimate of the cell shown in the video: 270A * 5 minutes / 3600 = 22.5Ah.
400Wh = 1440kJ
14000C 100v = 1440kj = 140F cap @ 100v
How physically dense that is...... I don't know, but they normalize the energy density to 1kg.
Using the Tesla model3 60kWh Li batt as base. Roughly 260Wh density.
400Wh/kg = (6.53mF @ 350v)/kg (260kg worth = ~1.7F)
260Wh/kg = (4.24mF @ 350v)/kg (~260kg is in a model3 60kWh batt) = ~1.1F
3x as far using (3x60kWh=180kWh) Chery
Chery @600Wh/kg, 180kWh = 300kg = 136,500cm^3 = 0.1365m^3 = ~5cu.ft.
This works out to be 1.15x less weight, 3x the range..... vs Tesla model3 60kWh batt.
https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/china-solid-battery-promises-800-mile-range
Li-ion batt material is about the same g/cm^3 density as graphene supercap.
Material Density (g/cm³) Volume for 1 kg (cm³) Approximate Size (cm)
Activated Carbon 0.5 - 0.6 1667 - 2000 12.0 x 12.0 x 12.0
Graphene 2.2 455 7.6 x 7.6 x 7.6
Carbon Nanotubes 1.3 769 9.2 x 9.2 x 9.2
Carbon Aerogel 0.1 - 0.3 3333 - 10000 14.3 x 14.3 x 14.3
The math seems right.
With that small size Chery batt, being that energy dense, my guess is they are using lower voltage than the Li batts do.
-
The thing to remember about graphene is just because it left the news cycle doesn't mean countless people are not working on it. It's the perfect material for super capacitors, batteries and reinforcement fibers.
If they can ramp up production to commercial levels it's game over for batteries imo.
-
Does anyone have the efficiency numbers for the tech, say Li-ion batt vs graphene supercap?
As example, fill the thing with 1kJ, and then I empty the thing.
To put in 1kJ I must use more than 1kJ to place 1kJ.
To empty it I need to take out 1kJ, but some of that is wasted.
Assume the measurement is taken right at the item in/out connector, and not 1m down a cable, etc.
Funny story. Tesla charge wall thingy, if you place a kW-meter on mains, it will show you used almost 2x the energy given to battery. Talk about crippling the power grid.
-
Does anyone have the efficiency numbers for the tech, say Li-ion batt vs graphene supercap?
You can google "coulombic efficiency (https://eureka.patsnap.com/report-benchmark-nmc-battery-efficiency-under-sustainable-protocols) lithium ion battery":
- Lead acid ~80%
- LFP 90-95%
- NMC 85-95%
- graphene supercap 90-99% (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352152X22019077)
Funny story. Tesla charge wall thingy, if you place a kW-meter on mains, it will show you used almost 2x the energy given to battery. Talk about crippling the power grid.
tesla powerwall round trip efficiency is 80-90% (https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/powerwall-efficiency-86.227079/) not 50%. If you are measuring 50% something is wrong, maybe bad cells or leakage, or a bad clamp meter. Generally they would be charged during off-peak so its not "crippling the power grid" but doing the opposite.
-
Funny story. Tesla charge wall thingy, if you place a kW-meter on mains, it will show you used almost 2x the energy given to battery. Talk about crippling the power grid.
tesla powerwall round trip efficiency is 80-90% (https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/powerwall-efficiency-86.227079/) not 50%. If you are measuring 50% something is wrong, maybe bad cells or leakage, or a bad clamp meter. Generally they would be charged during off-peak so its not "crippling the power grid" but doing the opposite.
Yeah, 50% is way off, this is fairly well characterised.
-
Funny story. Tesla charge wall thingy, if you place a kW-meter on mains, it will show you used almost 2x the energy given to battery. Talk about crippling the power grid.
tesla powerwall round trip efficiency is 80-90% (https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/powerwall-efficiency-86.227079/) not 50%. If you are measuring 50% something is wrong, maybe bad cells or leakage, or a bad clamp meter. Generally they would be charged during off-peak so its not "crippling the power grid" but doing the opposite.
Yeah, 50% is way off, this is fairly well characterised.
I will dig up the video that showed near 50%.
But even 80% seems dismal. Use and pay for 1kJ from util, and only put into the bat 0.8kJ ?
https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/home-charging-efficiency.73181/
An electric stove is something like 240v 30A on a 50A ckt. 7.2kW. Would need to run the stove for 8.3hr to match the energy needed to fill a small 60kWh batt from zero to full. Sure, the norm is not 0 to full, maybe its 50% to full, so 4.15 hr on that stove. In real world nobody is running their stove 4.15hrs everyday, but we would expect all the EVs to start doing that, plus an extra 20% of waste. How does any grid handle that? My bet is no grid today or in next 10yrs can handle that load. At least with stove power there's not 20% being wasted. 7.2kw into a stove is 7.1999kw of heat for cooking. ;)
Supercaps (and anything that uses electrical power) does not escape this issue either. The rate of power hungry devices being deployed (EVs, forklifts, lawn equip, farm equip, hospital equip, industrial manufacturing, etc and the like), is out-pacing advancement and upgrades to electrical transmission, aka "grid".
Power outages happen around the world all the time from down wires, generator failure, controls malfunction. How does stuff get charged when the grid is down for 1/3/15 days?
As for Donut new 400Wh/kg item, it does not appear to be dodgy at all, at least not in terms of feasible tech.
-
Round trip through an extra battery would be either for self consumption of PV, or for grid directed consumption balancing. EVs don't charge from empty to full every day. The thread topic is silly enough without this extra idiocy.
-
Round trip through an extra battery would be either for self consumption of PV, or for grid directed consumption balancing. EVs don't charge from empty to full every day. The thread topic is silly enough without this extra idiocy.
50-100 everyday perhaps?
HPEVs can often take their smaller battery to near zero.
There's major hurdles to overcome when trying to move all the gasoline/diesel vehicles to rechargeable power source. The 1st being power transmission, and the 2nd being actual delivery. Around the world there are countless apartment complexes that may have avg density of 1.2 vehicles per apartment, and everyone just jockeys for a parking spot on some blacktop covered earth. How do they all plug in, and will every spot have available the numerous different types of plug-in connectors?
Anything just battery alone, cannot scale, not now and will be difficult and very costly in the future.
-
Round trip through an extra battery would be either for self consumption of PV, or for grid directed consumption balancing. EVs don't charge from empty to full every day. The thread topic is silly enough without this extra idiocy.
50-100 everyday perhaps?
HPEVs can often take their smaller battery to near zero.
There's major hurdles to overcome when trying to move all the gasoline/diesel vehicles to rechargeable power source. The 1st being power transmission, and the 2nd being actual delivery. Around the world there are countless apartment complexes that may have avg density of 1.2 vehicles per apartment, and everyone just jockeys for a parking spot on some blacktop covered earth. How do they all plug in, and will every spot have available the numerous different types of plug-in connectors?
Anything just battery alone, cannot scale, not now and will be difficult and very costly in the future.
It reminds me of the crypto-miner and data centers popping up everywhere. It's quite the scam. These operations get subsidies and pay a lower bulk rate while the taxpayers are on the hook for higher domestic rates (supply and demand) as well as the grid upgrade fees. Here in Alberta they brag about how low the power rates are while the service/transmission fees tripled. It's a joke.
On the upside most of my very Conservative oilfield friends in Alberta are all in on solar and wind. I pitched the engineering for solar farms to one oilfield guy who then built a 10MW solar farm. Another oilfield friend who hated renewables got 30 wind turbines on his farm and used the first payment to buy 1MW worth of solar. Weird how they all changed their mind so quickly and now they can't stop talking about how great renewables are.
AI claims if we banned all the crypto miners/data centers and power exports to the U.S. we could charge over 10 million EV's daily. Which accounts for about half of all personal vehicles. Since the U.S. claimed they "don't need Canada" it's an option. It's only 35 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity or 2% of the market, they won't miss it. We could make Canada even greater.
-
I will dig up the video that showed near 50%.
But even 80% seems dismal. Use and pay for 1kJ from util, and only put into the bat 0.8kJ ?
80% was the worst case, many battery backups are 85-95% which is completely fine, because again, they can be set to charge off-peak (https://www.solarreviews.com/blog/peak-hour-electricity-explained). Some power companies will even pay you to take off-peak power, or give it away for free (Dave has ~1h free of power).
An electric stove is something like 240v 30A on a 50A ckt. 7.2kW. Would need to run the stove for 8.3hr to match the energy needed to fill a small 60kWh batt from zero to full. Sure, the norm is not 0 to full, maybe its 50% to full, so 4.15 hr on that stove. In real world nobody is running their stove 4.15hrs everyday, but we would expect all the EVs to start doing that, plus an extra 20% of waste. How does any grid handle that? My bet is no grid today or in next 10yrs can handle that load. At least with stove power there's not 20% being wasted. 7.2kw into a stove is 7.1999kw of heat for cooking. ;)
Not sure what you are ranting on about but the average electric cooktop is not 100% efficient it is 75% (https://www.leafscore.com/eco-friendly-kitchen-products/which-is-more-energy-efficient-gas-electric-or-induction/). If you go with induction it jumps to 85%+.
-
I will dig up the video that showed near 50%.
But even 80% seems dismal. Use and pay for 1kJ from util, and only put into the bat 0.8kJ ?
https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/home-charging-efficiency.73181/
An electric stove is something like 240v 30A on a 50A ckt. 7.2kW. Would need to run the stove for 8.3hr to match the energy needed to fill a small 60kWh batt from zero to full. Sure, the norm is not 0 to full, maybe its 50% to full, so 4.15 hr on that stove. In real world nobody is running their stove 4.15hrs everyday, but we would expect all the EVs to start doing that, plus an extra 20% of waste. How does any grid handle that? My bet is no grid today or in next 10yrs can handle that load. At least with stove power there's not 20% being wasted. 7.2kw into a stove is 7.1999kw of heat for cooking. ;)
Supercaps (and anything that uses electrical power) does not escape this issue either. The rate of power hungry devices being deployed (EVs, forklifts, lawn equip, farm equip, hospital equip, industrial manufacturing, etc and the like), is out-pacing advancement and upgrades to electrical transmission, aka "grid".
Power outages happen around the world all the time from down wires, generator failure, controls malfunction. How does stuff get charged when the grid is down for 1/3/15 days?
This line of inquiry is worth pursuing.
I don't have any hard data to share here, but let me tell you about an epiphany I had several years ago:
I was flying into Minneapolis, Minnesota in the dead of winter.
As we descended toward Lindbergh Field over the vast urban area, I could see hundreds of houses stretching away into the distance, all covered by snow on the ground.
It was goddamn cold. Some days during my stay got up to the single digits (Fahrenheit).
I knew that most of those houses were heated by fossil fuels, mainly natural gas. Sure, some of them, especially newer ones, had electric heat (and air conditioning), but those were in the minority.
It then struck me what an enormous task it would be to suddenly convert all of those dwellings to "sustainable", non-global-warming-causing (supposedly) energy sources.
Meaning electricity.
I leave it to you to connect the dots here.
Seems to me that the supposedly smart people who are pushing us towards this "sustainable" future, including supposedly trained engineers and pointy-headed scientists, are actually fucking idiots. Because apparently they have not thought this scenario through: all the new generation sources that will be required, not to mention the distribution infrastructure, the on-line storage, all of that.
I have to question whether this wholesale transition to an electric-only future is even possible, given all the restraints here.
Plus an increasing world population. And a population that, thanks to rising social equity movements, is demanding an increased standard of living. All of which requires energy.
We need someone to look at the totality here and come up with a "theory-of-everything" analysis to see if this is even remotely within the realm of possibility.
-
Many people on this site are paranoid about gaseous hydrogen in pipelines (fear of hydrogen embrittlement, even at normal temperatures), but distribution of hydrogen can use the existing natural gas pipelines with minor modifications.
I remember (ca. 1960) when the local gas company exchanged the orifices on our gas stove when Duluth (Minn.) changed from “town gas” (coal gas) to natural gas (when the pipeline reached us). Town gas was too expensive for home heating, but much of the city switched from coal to natural gas thereafter.
-
Seems to me that the supposedly smart people who are pushing us towards this "sustainable" future, including supposedly trained engineers and pointy-headed scientists, are actually fucking idiots. Because apparently they have not thought this scenario through: all the new generation sources that will be required, not to mention the distribution infrastructure, the on-line storage, all of that.
Norway is already at 99% renewable energy, Iceland 100%, Denmark 88%, and those are cold climates. But they aren't filled with brilliant skeptics like yourself, clearly you know best. Even though you can't be bothered to do any research or calculate any numbers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_renewable_electricity_production
-
It then struck me what an enormous task it would be to suddenly convert all of those dwellings to "sustainable", non-global-warming-causing (supposedly) energy sources.
Meaning electricity.
I leave it to you to connect the dots here.
Seems to me that the supposedly smart people who are pushing us towards this "sustainable" future, including supposedly trained engineers and pointy-headed scientists, are actually fucking idiots. Because apparently they have not thought this scenario through: all the new generation sources that will be required, not to mention the distribution infrastructure, the on-line storage, all of that.
Oh my god you are GENIUS! You figured out that gas heat is common in the midwestern US! You must be the first person to think of this! What a bunch of fucking idiots all those people who do this for a living are! Did you just figure this out this year, or have you been sitting on this golden knowledge for years without telling all those "supposedly trained engineers" how stupid they are?
We need someone to look at the totality here and come up with a "theory-of-everything" analysis to see if this is even remotely within the realm of possibility.
That has happened and is happening, you just don't read it, and instead invent nonsense on the internet and pretend that you know what you are talking about. The reality is that doing careful analysis of things like this is super boring, and basically nobody except the people who need to know read those reports.
tl;dr: it can be done. It can be done with the techonology we have now. It will take decades. The best time to start was 20 years ago, the second best time is today. Infrastructure like that lasts typically 50 years, and it's rarely worth ripping out working infrastructure. So the best bang-for-buck is changing how we build new things, and also upgrading when things naturally need replacement or upgrading. That causes natural turnover in a few decades, and avoids sudden demand spikes without the required distribution and generation infrastructure.
-
It then struck me what an enormous task it would be to suddenly convert all of those dwellings to "sustainable", non-global-warming-causing (supposedly) energy sources.
Except that these things never happen "suddenly". Just like a whole street doesn't suddenly all buy EVs and plug them in at the same time.
Infrastructure evolves gradually.
-
Seems to me that the supposedly smart people who are pushing us towards this "sustainable" future, including supposedly trained engineers and pointy-headed scientists, are actually fucking idiots. Because apparently they have not thought this scenario through: all the new generation sources that will be required, not to mention the distribution infrastructure, the on-line storage, all of that.
Norway is already at 99% renewable energy, Iceland 100%, Denmark 88%, and those are cold climates. But they aren't filled with brilliant skeptics like yourself, clearly you know best. Even though you can't be bothered to do any research or calculate any numbers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_renewable_electricity_production
I agree many countries are getting close to 100% renewables for power generation. Every country could do the same using known technology but there's a catch. Most of this doesn't include heating or heavy transport.
Here in Alberta it hit -30C a few days ago and my 100,000 btu/hr high efficiency natural gas furnace was running 50% of the time. Below is a graph of my furnace supply temperature from my home automation. 100,000 btu/hr works out to about 30kW or 136A @ 220v electrical. Even if we averaged the demand out it's still 68A which is close to 70% of my 100A service and electrical panel capacity just for electric heating. It gets worse and last year we saw a couple weeks of -35C to -40C with 80 kph winds.
Power generation technology is definitely getting better and the future is electric but were not quite there yet imo.
-
Did someone set a bunch of bots on this thread for some reason? In that climate you use GSHP, you don't heat at COP 1 electrically.
-
Electric heating is okay for only as long as your power generation and distribution network is not bombed.
Once that happens, you understand that burning fossil fuels (and wood) is the best and most reliable solution. It must always be available at least as a backup, and you don't thoughtlessly keep electric heating as the only option. Unless you have tens of kW of on-site generation, of course.
-
Did someone set a bunch of bots on this thread for some reason? In that climate you use GSHP, you don't heat at COP 1 electrically.
COP 1? What is that?
I learned what GSHP stands for, didn't know before.
Any more acronyms you want to throw at us?
-
Electric heating is okay for only as long as your power generation and distribution network is not bombed.
Natural gas gets pumped around by magical fairy farts?
As for prepping. Just set up lots of vertical solar and a big battery, superinsulate your innawood shack and leave the wood for when something breaks. Prepping is a rich man's hobby any way.
-
Electric heating is okay for only as long as your power generation and distribution network is not bombed.
Natural gas gets pumped around by magical fairy farts?
Pumping gas requires much less energy than generating heat using electricity. It's feasible to do it with what little you have left and/or back it up using generators.
As for prepping. Just set up lots of vertical solar and a big battery, superinsulate your innawood shack and leave the wood for when something breaks. Prepping is a rich man's hobby any way.
Blah blah. Come live here and see how things really work.
-
Pumping gas requires much less energy than generating heat using electricity. It's feasible to do it with what little you have left and/or back it up using generators.
Gas yards burn well.
how things really work.
That wasn't how it worked a year ago and not how it can work next year, it's not physics which limited/limits the targeting but military decisions.
The only defense for centralised infrastructure in total war with modern weapons is offense.
-
Pumping gas requires much less energy than generating heat using electricity. It's feasible to do it with what little you have left and/or back it up using generators.
Gas yards burn well.
how things really work.
That wasn't how it worked a year ago and not how it can work next year, it's not physics which limited/limits the targeting but military decisions.
The only defense for centralised infrastructure in total war with modern weapons is offense.
:palm:
So how many of these nukes do you have in your inventory, "ready for use"? Because those "American ones attached to F-35s" don't count. The "Orange Emperor" will disable your operational codes, and you might as well attach concrete blocks to F-35s and attack Moscow. The deal with Putin has already been struck, wake up. So you're saying that winters in the Netherlands reach -30 degrees Celsius? So what, your shipping canals don't freeze over, and it's probably supposed to be that cold in Kyiv starting Sunday.
-
So you're saying that winters in the Netherlands reach -30 degrees Celsius? So what, your shipping canals don't freeze over, and it's probably supposed to be that cold in Kyiv starting Sunday.
I'm saying modern medium range ballistic missiles and modern ground hugging drones/missiles can cripple gas distribution as easily as electricity. Electricity is harder to defend due to the HV grid, gas storage sites provide extreme centralisation and high value targets.
Deciding between these two on the basis of a total war is just silly. If it gets to that, you're just screwed.
-
Electricity is harder to defend due to the HV grid, gas storage sites provide extreme centralisation and high value targets.
In the real world, decentralization of power sources (whether electric, gas, or solar panels + batteries) only provides "security" for "houses on the edge of urban areas." It has no real application for highly urbanized cities and "apartment complexes." How many solar panels + batteries can you place on the roof of an apartment building (weighting the ceilings) and still, a single drone missile will destroy the structure? It's economically viable to "hit" it even with a Kinzhal. However, "hitting" a single cottage in the countryside with panels + batteries with a Kinzhal is simply not economically or military strategic justifiable.
-
Did someone set a bunch of bots on this thread for some reason? In that climate you use GSHP, you don't heat at COP 1 electrically.
COP 1? What is that?
I learned what GSHP stands for, didn't know before.
Any more acronyms you want to throw at us?
Seeing as no-one else can be bothered to answer your question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_performance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_performance)
-
In the real world, decentralization of power sources (whether electric, gas, or solar panels + batteries) only provides "security" for "houses on the edge of urban areas."
Gas pipelines being underground was not enough either in the end. Gas being out last and I hope promptly repaired in this specific case is not something to base energy policy on.
Some forms of seasonal storage could allow decentralised electricity generation even in cities. Chemical storage in iron or aluminium for instance. If you want the best disaster resilience, this would be it.
-
Re: Reply #145
Electricity has it's place. As example, getting natural gas to all the stoves in a hi-rise apartment building is monumental more difficult then amps going up. It's also less dangerous to not have natural gas pipes and tethers in every apartment in such building.
Everything electric is simply not feasible for some reasons.
Oddly, adding explosive & toxic gases into homes is real. Look at where AC 'freon' is moving to. It was R22 forever, then morphed over to other lower greenhouse impact like 410a (lower GWP), but now all that is being migrated to even lower GWP gases, which makes them more dangerous to the local people. If only the push was for better equipment, etc. R22 btw is more efficient than lots of other gases when ambient is above 100F.
I have not yet even look at the efficiency profile of these newer gases, could be way less just so they can lower GWP, but witut any regard as to how the electric needed is generated w/o offsetting the GWP savings from the new gases.
Mobile gear that carries batteries does appear to be the dominant application for batteries. Having a supercap 9v batt for my smoke detector would be the end of replacing the "battery" for detectors that have util power and the batt is just backup. It's year 2026 and the detectors (the wired ones) don't all come with a small Li-ion pack for bkup reasons?
Vehicles need ample kWh to be useful. To help on supply side I can see where a util can store power from solar and use that to help offset the demand that comes at night, but there still is a transmission issue that needs to be solved.
Example, util rund 1GW solar for 8hrs and captures that into local storage (batts, other). It;s the PowerWall concept. Then at night the util uses that at night when demand from recharging vehicles comes online. 1Gw for 8hr is 28.8B kJ. That enough to completey recharge 133,333 60kWh Li-ion batts. If the batts are doing the 50%-100% charge, then you can dbl it to 266,000 vehicles. Sounds all good and dandy, but can such 1GW solar/batt plant scale in numbers to be able to handle 1.14B conversions from gasoline/diesel to battery? Maybe, you would need approx 5000 such util systems just to cover existing vehicle numbers. Util power also needs to scale because it's estimated around 2.5B vehicles will be out there by 2025, hence util must scale up by 200% by 2050 if it were able to handle the the 1.14B of today.
I see obvious major hurdles that says this stuff simply cannot scale. Now the question becomes, does it need to? Why go after everything, probably best to just offset fossil fuels with solar and nuke power to lower the fossil fuels use down to a level that can be managed. This is more of a plausible scenario.
I think the science is well understood and should be used by real scientists to figure out the solution, vs stupid decision by dumb idiot govt leaders and activists.
I do believe Donut and Chery and anyone else who does R&D in graphene caps, HFCEV, fusion reactors, are doing so in leading-tech manner, this stuff is the future. But it has to come in natural progression.
Solar is interesting. Many years ago 1st Solar was creating product that was getting almost 50% more efficient every 5yrs or so. Not sure where they are at today but there's always a limiting barrier to overcome to get more, but the Sun is free energy, we just need to learn how to capture and use it.
In reality, humans have just about 2.1B years on Earth if they do not destroy themselves completely, or Earth gets hit with another huge rock impact. The Earth is totally gone in about 4.3B years from now. Time is ticking. The probability of self destruction or big rock is actually rather high. The clock still runs.
-
I have not yet even look at the efficiency profile of these newer gases, could be way less just so they can lower GWP
Propane generally has higher efficiency, lower capacity. Capacity doesn't matter much.
-
In reality, humans have just about 2.1B years on Earth if they do not destroy themselves completely, or Earth gets hit with another huge rock impact. The Earth is totally gone in about 4.3B years from now. Time is ticking. The probability of self destruction or big rock is actually rather high. The clock still runs.
If I remember correctly, geologists say that life on Earth has only about 1/2 million more years to go. The planet's core is cooling and as it solidifies it will stop spinning so the magnetic field will be gone and the atmosphere will be stripped away by the solar wind.
Ironically, putting greenhouse gases in the atmosphere delays this event but only marginally.
-
In reality, humans have just about 2.1B years on Earth if they do not destroy themselves completely, or Earth gets hit with another huge rock impact. The Earth is totally gone in about 4.3B years from now. Time is ticking. The probability of self destruction or big rock is actually rather high. The clock still runs.
If I remember correctly, geologists say that life on Earth has only about 1/2 million more years to go. The planet's core is cooling and as it solidifies it will stop spinning so the magnetic field will be gone and the atmosphere will be stripped away by the solar wind.
Ironically, putting greenhouse gases in the atmosphere delays this event but only marginally.
Cooling core? It's slow, and that problem (time) is many times bigger than Red Giant.
Also to note, there is a lifetime(earth) worth of useable heat energy inside Earth for human consumption, so why do we keep trying to make energy from problematic systems?
Apparently we can currently drill into Earth to about the depth needed to just about match operational temp(min) of steam turbines (200-400C).
The primary barrier to deeper drilling lies in the extreme temperatures encountered at relatively shallow depths. For example, the Kola Superdeep Borehole, the deepest hole ever drilled, reached temperatures exceeding 180°C (356°F) at its bottom.
So, just make a bunch of bore holes, pump water down, up comes steam. "free" clean eternal energy.
-
Did someone set a bunch of bots on this thread for some reason? In that climate you use GSHP, you don't heat at COP 1 electrically.
COP 1? What is that?
I learned what GSHP stands for, didn't know before.
Any more acronyms you want to throw at us?
Seeing as no-one else can be bothered to answer your question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_performance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_performance)
Thanks. From the look of it I thought it might be referring instead to the annual UN climate-change confab, Conference of Parties.
I just loves it when people sprinkle their posts with acronyms (or initialisms) that they assume everyone else knows what they mean ...
-
Industry called it a scam. Update from The Electric Viking
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSysUN_7fRg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSysUN_7fRg)
-
WHOOPS!!!
Delivery has been postponed to late this year or the beginning of 2027.
Buddy, can you spare a dime?
-
WHOOPS!!!
Delivery has been postponed to late this year or the beginning of 2027.
Buddy, can you spare a dime?
That has been claimed to be a misunderstanding, they are saying if you order now, the queue extends to Q4 earliest...
https://insideevs.com/news/786388/verge-motorcycles-donut-labs-solid-state-battery-ev/
Update: "First orders received last year for Verge Motorcycles will start in Q1 as previously mentioned," Verge Motorcycles CEO Tuomo Lehtimäki told InsideEVs. "New U.S. orders received now can expect a bike delivery in Q4. To clarify, when anyone is ordering a bike now, that bike is landing at Q4 2026 if they are making the order today. There is a queue and orders made last year will be delivered first. Verge Motorcycles deliveries will start in late March and bikes ordered now will be delivered later this year as planned."
-
Bullshit. They announced the "battery" at CES on Jan 6. What last years orders they are talking about, especially so many of them that they would be unable to fulfill new ones until Q4? /Bullshit.
-
Bullshit. They announced the "battery" at CES on Jan 6. What last years orders they are talking about, especially so many of them that they would be unable to fulfill new ones until Q4? /Bullshit.
The battery yes, it was announced this year, but the Verge motorcycles were announced 2 years ago as far as I know with pre-orders coming in before CES.
i.e. the 'solid state battery' marketing campaign worked, pre-orders are piling up.
-
Delivery has been postponed to late this year or the beginning of 2027.
What a surprise!
But it can't be a scam! I mean, they are not getting any money, right? And they are delivering soon! It exists!!
-
My god it must be a scam and sounds like Tesla.
Didn't Tesla fake the self-drive feature by remote control then receive huge sums of money on advanced orders based on technology they did not possess at the time?. I mean without the self-drive feature it was just an average EV and few would have invested. Funny how that works.
As well, if I remember right countless people who ordered a Tesla EV were pretty mad they had to wait so long. The first cybertrucks were delivered four years after it was unveiled and advanced orders taken. Some waited even longer because of limited production and scheduling issues. As they say, there is a sucker born every minute. Imagine waiting four years for a vehicle then have the body panels falling off, oh the horror :-DD.
-
Bullshit. They announced the "battery" at CES on Jan 6. What last years orders they are talking about, especially so many of them that they would be unable to fulfill new ones until Q4? /Bullshit.
The battery yes, it was announced this year, but the Verge motorcycles were announced 2 years ago as far as I know with pre-orders coming in before CES.
i.e. the 'solid state battery' marketing campaign worked, pre-orders are piling up.
I am fairly certain they said in that commentary the last year orders for motorcycles with the new battery.
Makes me wonder who knew about the new battery last year. The thing smells BS.
And how many orders they got from last year that has crippled their production capacity until Q4? Two ? Looks the right number to me judging on how comical the story is.
-
Bullshit. They announced the "battery" at CES on Jan 6. What last years orders they are talking about, especially so many of them that they would be unable to fulfill new ones until Q4? /Bullshit.
The battery yes, it was announced this year, but the Verge motorcycles were announced 2 years ago as far as I know with pre-orders coming in before CES.
i.e. the 'solid state battery' marketing campaign worked, pre-orders are piling up.
I am fairly certain they said in that commentary the last year orders for motorcycles with the new battery.
Makes me wonder who knew about the new battery last year. The thing smells BS.
And how many orders they got from last year that has crippled their production capacity until Q4? Two ? Looks the right number to me judging on how comical the story is.
The motorcycle already made some buzz by winning a record for the longest distance traveled on a single charge by an EM (*). Plus reservation its only 100USD on their promo material for a 34900USD. I do not know if they may have other fees later. So its not hard to imagine that there were a couple more orders. Which can rapidly cripple their production especially if that production capacity is presumably very small.
To me SSB looks like a bad marketing stunt that is about to backfire soon. Announcing delays can be a strategy to deal with that.
*) my sources are my own memories from ./ and yt so I could be wrong on that.
-
Bud
I am fairly certain they said in that commentary the last year orders for motorcycles with the new battery.
Makes me wonder who knew about the new battery last year. The thing smells BS.
And how many orders they got from last year that has crippled their production capacity until Q4? Two ? Looks the right number to me judging on how comical the story is.
Compared to what?.
The Tesla cybertruck was delayed four years after advanced orders were taken, met none of the original specs and most agree is of inferior quality to what was promoted. BS my any measure.
On the other hand BYD is getting very good reviews.
https://insideevs.com/reviews/769113/byd-seagull-good-video-drive/
An $8000 EV?, Tesla is going to get totally destroyed. I think most people are tired of Tesla's bs.
-
Dolphin Mini in Mexico is 22k$, not 8k.
For that money I'd prefer the Hyundai Inster (or maybe VW ID.Polo when it launches).
-
Their claim of "only new orders are delayed to Q4 or early 2027" is just part of the fake-out. It's a setup for the next release that goes something like, "We're sorry but we are having some production issues with the motorcycle and all orders are now delayed to Q4 at a minimum."
Note how they will use the production of the motorcycle itself as an excuse for delays to disguise the fact that that the battery itself is fake.
I read somewhere that the $100 USD deposit for your order is non-refundable. So..... If they get 1000 pre-orders that's $100,000 cash in the bank.
There is a big race going on between most of the automotive OEMs to finally release a solid-state battery into production. This has been going on for years. I am following a non-automotive contender for the prize called QuantumScape.
-
I guess we are about 6 to 8 weeks away from the first grumblings from people that dropped their $100 USD and pre-ordered the electric motorcycle. Even those motorcycle lifestyler guys that look like big bears with their white beards and jean jackets are fully connected on social media.
It's going to be a gas! gas! gas! No pun intended!
-
Dolphin Mini in Mexico is 22k$, not 8k.
For that money I'd prefer the Hyundai Inster (or maybe VW ID.Polo when it launches).
Mexico also has tariffs on Chines EV's most likely because of blatant threats and intimidation made by the U.S. against Mexico and Canada. The U.S. has made it pretty clear they cannot be trusted.
"Despite these tariffs, BYD has maintained a strong market presence, controlling about 70% of EV and plug-in hybrid sales in Mexico.
The company has doubled its sales volume in the past year, indicating that demand for its vehicles remains robust."
China has a clear advantage over other countries by selling EV's to their own people at $8000. The $20K saved goes into their own pockets not some psychotic drug addicted billionaire. Wouldn't you like to buy a $8000 EV?, I would in a heartbeat.
-
The $20K saved goes into their own pockets not some psychotic drug addicted billionaire.
Orange man really bad. Badder than bad. Three more years and you will be free!!!!!!!!!
Who knows what drugs those guys in Finland are on. They might show up on YouTube in a police bodycam video.
-
Dolphin Mini in Mexico is 22k$, not 8k.
Mexico also has tariffs on Chines EV's most likely because of blatant threats and intimidation made by the U.S. against Mexico and Canada. The U.S. has made it pretty clear they cannot be trusted.
Wouldn't you like to buy a $8000 EV?, I would in a heartbeat.
- The launch price was $21k USD when there were no mexico/china tariffs on EVs (March 2024).
- The 50% tariffs only started Jan 1, 2026.
This is not hard to look up.
The safety rating is quite good considering the cost and small size: youtube.com/watch?v=oyPOXEnJjKY (http://youtube.com/watch?v=oyPOXEnJjKY). But sometimes they do cut out things for the Mexico market as the requirements are lower (https://www.thedrive.com/news/us-market-cars-are-far-safer-than-mexican-models-test-reveals).
-
Mexico also has tariffs on Chines EV's most likely because of blatant threats and intimidation made by the U.S. against Mexico and Canada.
Or maybe the statements of BYD building a Mexican factory any day now were blatant lies and they wanted to protected their own industry. (Mexico has a floating currency, so tariffs are then the mercantilist tool of choice.)
-
Orange man really bad. Badder than bad. Three more years and you will be free!!!!!!!!!
Why's that?, will JD relinquish tariffs? :-DD :-DD
-
Full text from their email to shareholders today (translated from Finnish):
We previously announced that we would soon be releasing third-party test results regarding Donut Lab's battery technology as part of a broader video marketing campaign. There were a few delays beyond our control, but now the clock has started ticking.
The first video, launching a series in which evidence will be presented, will be posted on the website next week on February 20, 2026, at 9:00 AM Finnish time.
The first episode (to be released on the website at that time) will be an introductory video explaining what to expect from the series and why we are making it. It will also provide some background and recap recent events. Following that, as part of the campaign, we will release a succession of videos on the same site, each proving a key feature of the battery.
https://old.reddit.com/r/electricvehicles/comments/1r10bpk/donut_lab_to_launch_a_video_campaign_which_it/
Apparently wil be here
https://idonutbelieve.com/
-
Following that, as part of the campaign, we will release a succession of videos on the same site, each proving a key feature of the battery.
Apparently wil be here
https://idonutbelieve.com/
Thanks but no thanks DL. Everyone can make campaigns or make believe. Show some independent tests or go home.
-
Thanks but no thanks. Everyone can make campaigns or make believe. Show some independent tests or go home.
Apparently mistakenly published text on that site (since removed) potentially indicates they may have VTT (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VTT_Technical_Research_Centre_of_Finland) doing tests
https://old.reddit.com/r/electricvehicles/comments/1r10bpk/donut_lab_to_launch_a_video_campaign_which_it/o4n36hp/
-
Following that, as part of the campaign, we will release a succession of videos on the same site, each proving a key feature of the battery.
Apparently wil be here
https://idonutbelieve.com/
Thanks but no thanks DL. Everyone can make campaigns or make believe. Show some independent tests or go home.
It's debatable, I own an energy and automation company and am gearing up to sell some high end technology this spring. If my customers said they want independent testing I would tell them to do it themselves. I am under no obligation to convince them anything works and if they don't like it then don't buy it. My only obligation is that the thing I'm selling works as claimed to avoid liability.
The fact is most real business owners think it's comical when their customers start making demands. Everyone here rolls their eyes and thinks, oh great another Karen. We may try to oblige them a bit but then basically tell them to get lost. In many cases I have met the customers on a consulting job, talked for 10 minutes, found they are Karen's and said sorry I'm busy. It's just not worth my time dealing with people who cannot be pleased. We also know damn well they are going to try to shaft us given the chance. It's just not worth our time.
Sorry, that's just life.
-
Assuming that letter to shareholders is true, this is not about customers. A scam on its last legs.
"lorem ipsum dolor sit amet." = shit to make up and their contact at VTT was going to be on a 6 month holiday.
-
Assuming that letter to shareholders is true, this is not about customers. A scam on its last legs.
"lorem ipsum dolor sit amet." = shit to make up and their contact at VTT was going to be on a 6 month holiday.
It's debatable, one of my customers tried to get independent testing on ESD from a provincial research center. They had no idea what he was talking about, no experts in this field and any testing could be at least one year away if it was approved. At which point my customer called me, I setup the measuring equipment, tested two weeks later and had a science paper on his desk the week after.
Unfortunately anything technical relating to government run research is a slow moving train wreck. It takes forever and we can be pretty sure they are going to screw it up. So a government operation having one testing guy who happens to be on holiday for 6 months is par for the course imo.
It sounds like most people have no idea what it takes to launch a tech startup.
-
Thanks but no thanks. Everyone can make campaigns or make believe. Show some independent tests or go home.
Apparently mistakenly published text on that site (since removed) potentially indicates they may have VTT (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VTT_Technical_Research_Centre_of_Finland) doing tests
https://old.reddit.com/r/electricvehicles/comments/1r10bpk/donut_lab_to_launch_a_video_campaign_which_it/o4n36hp/
Independent tests may show how well one device works, but won't say anything about equally important things like manufacturability, costs etc. Untill they are shipping in significant numbers it's all BS until proven otherwise
-
They had no idea what he was talking about, no experts in this field .
This is clearly not the case here.
-
And VTT will make a test, that is exactly the business they do. This is the good old "Tested by TÜV" scam: ask them to do any test, they will write a test report that shows how the product performed in the test, then you can say it was tested by TÜV or whatever is respected independent testing facility name in the relevant region, and you don't need to even lie, just misrepresent what it means that something is independently tested.
-
There is some news. Donut Lab is stating that they are going to be sharing independent lab testing of their battery with a series of videos. They created a new web site for this.
The CEO released a video acknowledging all of the doubts about their alleged battery technology and said "stay tuned for all of the proof." There is nothing of substance in that video, you can find it on YouTube.
Here is the new web site and I think we are a few days away from the first testing video. It should be interesting.
https://idonutbelieve.com/
-
First test results go live in two days, 10 hours and 56 minutes!!! The web site has a countdown clock!
Call me old school, but the first test I would do is connect the battery to a dumb resistor and integrate on the power dissipation and show the resultant energy and voltage vs. time. Do this for different values of load resistor.
I hate seeing amateur experimenters on YouTube drive LEDs to show their setup is doing something because you see lights!!! An LED is a non-linear load that makes life very complicated when trying to make some power or energy measurements.
I don't know what they normally do to test batteries so it will be interesting for me. I hope they measure the charging and output impedance of the battery for different states of charge and different current levels. For all I know there might be a automated machine that plots curves for all of these parameters.
-
We can assume that the tester, the VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, is credible for now. But if there is anything shady or flaky in what they do, I am going to come down hard on them.
It reminds me of a story about the late Robert Murray Smith. He seemed like a nice chap, but at the same time he was a poseur that often did not know what he was doing when it came to electronics. And of course most of his audience were non-technical and cheered him on no matter what he did.
He was making some small batteries with some kind of graphene mixture. And he was making big claims about the energy in them. The problem is that he was only measuring the current output from the battery and not the voltage. He was that clueless.
So I told him in the comments on his clip that his measurements were dead wrong and you had to factor in the voltage. And that completely blew his mind and his brain was frying. He super-blocked me on YouTube, and that was that. He even made a clip about me calling me a troll. A couple of months later he deleted that series of clips from his channel.
The harsh reality is that sometimes jolly old Robert Murray Smith was clueless. He presented himself as a learned person, but he didn't even know what the number 2.7182818 represented.
So, let's see what VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland has to offer.
-
Countdown is progressing... to reveal this:
srLive.textContent = 'More information is now available.';
Well. Let's hope they don't forget their set date to publish results.
-
We can assume that the tester, the VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, is credible for now.
Of course they are credible, but all they do is to perform the tests as specified by their client, and supply the report to the client.
It is then up to their client (Donut Lab in this case) how they use the report. Now if Donut Lab chooses to publish the report as a whole, then we can of course see what was tested, and how it performed. But classically in this sort of scam the idea is that the scammer does not publish the report as a whole; the convenient "minimum" is to simply say that "our product is tested by VTT". Another variation of that scam is to openly publish the report, but rely on the fact that most of the target audience are not technical enough to understand the significance of the test, and rely on the mainstream media bubble. I mean, if the report says that a cell weighing 105.3 grams had integral discharge energy of 22.8Wh, any engineer can calculate that as such their central claim of 400Wh/kg was bogus, but yellow media journalists are not capable or willing to do that, but continue hyping the story, because the story creates clicks for them.
Or, they can simply ask VTT to measure the capacity and temperature rise of the cell, and not ask them to weigh it. Then the most central claim about energy density cannot be assessed at all, and people who question that fact are just stupid and jealous.
But yeah, one thing using VTT rules out is the type of scam where secret wires are connected under the table, invisible to the camera. Or photo editing false numbers on video, etc. And this is exactly the reason to use such testing lab instead of doing your own youtube videos: this is useful for both serious players, and scammers.
-
The cheesy web site name, the countdown timer, all is to drive hype and make some money on youtube clicks. Why would anyone make a separare web site decoupled from the company's site just to publish test results, makes no sense, unless is part of an elaborate scam.
-
VTT are supposedly releasing a test report on 23rd Feb? :-//
EDIT: I see on the website they literally have a countdown timer with 11 hours left until the first test report is published.
The problem with this is that these companies will test and verify exactly what you pay them to test and verify. Remember when Batteriser had UL test their battery, and UL had to subsequently tell them not to use their name to promote the battery as "UL tested"?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fn9R2dnYdaY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fn9R2dnYdaY)
-
Wouldn't it be amazing if all the sceptics were wrong and their claims were right. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
-
Wouldn't it be amazing if all the sceptics were wrong and their claims were right. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
It would be absolutely wonderful. It's a funny scenario to play with. But don't worry, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... ....
Now a bit more interesting situation would be if they had kind of a good, actual product, not to all those specifications, but still something serious and useful. Let's say, a battery which has 200Wh/kg energy density and can do 10000 cycles with e.g. a bit less ESR drop in cold than the competitors. Now that would be a social shitstorm, with all the skeptics (like me and all other sane people) having to explain "oh, I didn't say that..."
But that's improbable, too. This simply has too many red flags so that most likely it's just a 100% scam with either absolutely no product at all, or in best case, an impractical / useless product of some sort.
The thing is, if you are truly a world-class battery tech developer and able to make such a breakthrough, you would not make it look like a scam just to troll people. You would be enjoying the battery tech, not the trolling. Trolling is usually for losers, so to speak.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2QU_LpkSPs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2QU_LpkSPs)
-
The VTT's report is out:
https://pub-fee113bb711e441db5c353d2d31abbb3.r2.dev/VTT_CR_00092_26.pdf
And it is so far just as I expected: the cell weight is missing, so you can't confirm the key claim of energy density. Apparently, the customer (Donut Lab) forgot to ask the cell to be weighed. How unfortunate.
-
Heh, exactly.
And now there is a new countdown.
They are going to milk this thing for all it's worth over many weeks it seems.
Or until the first Verge motorcycles ship.
But yep, no mention of cell weight or dimensions. ::)
-
They are going to milk this thing for all it's worth over many weeks it seems.
Or until the first Verge motorcycles ship.
But surely you've fallen for their evil plan :)
If it's all hype, they've succeeded in getting you to discuss it and therby promote it. If it's not, the sceptics will end up looking silly.
The right thing to do is to ignore it, expressing no opinion until it's released. Then you can discuss it from a position of knowledge.
Speculation is futile !
-
But speculation is great fun!
In addition to that, it's a domestic company, so it's a guaranteed coffee table discussion.
And I was not the only one at the office with the countdown on their second or third display today. ;D
On IRC the speculation is also inescapable.
-
Independent testing
https://www.theverge.com/transportation/882993/donut-labs-solid-state-battery-charge-speed-vtt-test (https://www.theverge.com/transportation/882993/donut-labs-solid-state-battery-charge-speed-vtt-test)
Wouldn't it be amazing if all the sceptics were wrong and their claims were right. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
Perhaps if the new tech would somewhat work, and, not be called a battery.
A 4day iphone17 "psu" that can charge in under a minute, perhaps is game changing technology.
-
The VTT's report is out:
https://pub-fee113bb711e441db5c353d2d31abbb3.r2.dev/VTT_CR_00092_26.pdf
And it is so far just as I expected: the cell weight is missing, so you can't confirm the key claim of energy density. Apparently, the customer (Donut Lab) forgot to ask the cell to be weighed. How unfortunate.
This testing was only about charge performance. They have been plain since starting this "disclosure" that they are doing it piece-meal week by week, obvious for hype reasons, it's a bit annoying but whatever, that's marketing departments for you, always annoying.
Next week they will release another report on another specification, and so on. Eventually the density will be a weekly focus I expect.
With that said, estimating size of the cell and having a guess at it's weight should be possible from the document and video, actually of course somebody has already taken a stab volumetrically using the cabinet model as a reference https://old.reddit.com/r/DonutLab/comments/1rcm9u4/estimation_of_volumetric_energy_density_from/
-
With that said, estimating size of the cell and having a guess at it's weight should be possible from the document and video.
Not really to the accuracy needed, though. 400Wh/kg number is exactly what makes all these claims so outragerously significant. At 250Wh/kg, it would be just... meh.
But, a product performing similarly can already be bought off-the-shelf, if 200Wh/kg is acceptable. Without any real reference for measurements (not even a banana), volumetric energy density could be estimated to maybe 50% accuracy if even that, and gravimetric energy density not much at all.
From images you can of course estimate that it's not 20 or 50 Wh/kg or something like that. It's better than that, for sure.
Note that the round-trip energy efficiency at 11C is 82% (and 87% at 5C), which means it does not have miraculously low internal resistance. So if this was real, it would be most usable at 5C max and even then with thermal management, but of course even that is a remarkable number.
But the charge curve, the amount of internal resistance, all mean their sample could be just a state-of-the-art, COTS NCA/NMC high-power cell, overdriven to 4.3V and 11C rating, because in such test, they don't have to care about aging (because it's tested only for a few cycles, not 100000). Heck, 10 year ago I tested COTS LCO and NCA cells charged to 4.45V instead of rated 4.20V, seeing +20% capacity, and no damage / no capacity degradation after 10 cycles, after which I stopped. I could have had VTT to rerun the same test and claim that I have a new battery tech with 20% better capacity, and higher 4.45V voltage, definitely not based on lithium and cobalt, and capable of 100000 cycles. This kind of stunt is easy enough to arrange.
Then again, I'm not 100% sure if even the best COTS NCA/NMC cells behave exactly like this when abused at 11C. I have not personally tested. But they are pretty close, so a real possibility that's all that's going on.
-
The VTT's report is out:
https://pub-fee113bb711e441db5c353d2d31abbb3.r2.dev/VTT_CR_00092_26.pdf
VTT's quote: "which the customer identified as solid-state battery cells"
Interesting to note that they are using voltages that only match Lithium Ion charge profiles, yet, IIRC, they have said that it's capable of varying voltage ranges.
It's almost as if they want you think think it's a solid state battery, but is actually a super capacitor 8)
Again, these testing houses do exactly what you tell them to, nothing more more, nothing less.
-
Then again, I'm not 100% sure if even the best COTS NCA/NMC cells behave exactly like this when abused at 11C.
Especially if you can clamp it between two large heat sinks and only have to do it twice.
-
From the report PDF, it was created by the VTT marketing manager on the 9/2/26, so doesn't look to have been tampered with by Donut Labs
-
With that said, estimating size of the cell and having a guess at it's weight should be possible from the document and video, actually of course somebody has already taken a stab volumetrically using the cabinet model as a reference https://old.reddit.com/r/DonutLab/comments/1rcm9u4/estimation_of_volumetric_energy_density_from/
If it was genuinely so good, they would be gloating about the energy density and would have asked VTT to put it in the report and calculate the energy density. That would WOW the world would it not?
So either Donut Labs are dumb and didn't think of doing this, or they are trying to hide it for some reason.
-
I wonder about how much thermal energy was soaked up by the heat sinks. A big chunk of metal can act as a thermal ground for the battery cell and soak up a lot of heat.
The amount of heat stored in the heat sinks could give you some clues about the charging efficiency so that you could compare it to what was in the report to see if the numbers make sense.
Very few thermocouples were used which I find suspect. And the copper bars supplying current to the battery cell were another heat sink themselves.
Anyway, it was not a thermal test per se, perhaps that will be done in a future video.
I am not convinced by what we have seen so far.
-
Heck, 10 year ago I tested COTS LCO and NCA cells charged to 4.45V instead of rated 4.20V, seeing +20% capacity, and no damage / no capacity degradation after 10 cycles, after which I stopped. I could have had VTT to rerun the same test and claim that I have a new battery tech with 20% better capacity, and higher 4.45V voltage, definitely not based on lithium and cobalt, and capable of 100000 cycles. This kind of stunt is easy enough to arrange.
I don't think many would care as we have 4.35V batteries on the market for 10+ years, and 4.45V for 3+ years. Which gets you more like ~6% capacity increase over 4.35. https://higherwire.com/blogs/articles-1/capacity-difference-between-4-35-and-4-20-volt-cells (https://higherwire.com/blogs/articles-1/capacity-difference-between-4-35-and-4-20-volt-cells) But I understand what you are getting at.
Hopefully the next test will include cell weight/volume. We already estimated capacity to be ~100Wh (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/renewable-energy/donut-lab-announces-solid-state-battery-in-production/msg6154393/#msg6154393) so we were close there. And I estimated 70x165x10mm (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/renewable-energy/donut-lab-announces-solid-state-battery-in-production/msg6160153/#msg6160153) (115cm3). Which is well within the capacity of existing cells on the market.
I think its a bit thicker than I initially thought (12mm?), so the volumetric density is not special (~700Wh/L):
[attachimg=1 width=400]
I wonder about how much thermal energy was soaked up by the heat sinks. A big chunk of metal can act as a thermal ground for the battery cell and soak up a lot of heat.
The amount of heat stored in the heat sinks could give you some clues about the charging efficiency so that you could compare it to what was in the report to see if the numbers make sense.
You can just calculate the round trip efficiency directly as Siwastaja has done already. I would trust the VTT numbers are accurate.
-
Anyway, it was not a thermal test per se, perhaps that will be done in a future video.
I am not convinced by what we have seen so far.
Me neither.
As Siwastaja said, it's quite possible to abuse existing tech to get these results.
They only did the few tests specified by Donut and that's it. No repeat test, no characteristic curves over time and temperature.
VTT didn't do any investigation, or made any independent comment.
Smells like classic "Independent Authority Washing", using VTT as a way to shut everyone up from investigating.
If they really had this revolutionary product, it's easy to demonstrate to the world in a rigorous and convincing way. Yet they have chosen to go about it in the sneakiest way possible.
-
Xjet has make a blog post about it:
https://aardvark.co.nz/daily/2026/0224.shtml
-
i will beliv
if jeff dahn verifies it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oc3XgCfQfXs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oc3XgCfQfXs)
-
I don't understand everyone's surprise. Quantumscape has posted claims for years that their solid state electrolyte cells can take 4C for thousands of cycles at 45 Celsius without melting and still retain 90% capacity. The "default mode" of QS cells during fast charging is the same as the failure mode for classic wet electrolyte cells: lithium plating.
What really doesn't make sense is that Donut is claiming this is "their battery."
Everyone knows the type of plant needed to produce 100 kWh battery packs for cars is the size of several football fields. They don't :wtf: ing have any of those.
The whole thing really steams my hams. What do you mean, you don't believe I made twelve burger patties suspiciously identical to the McDonald's Quarter Pounder in my kitchen in the last seven minutes? But I did make them! No, of course you can't come to the kitchen to watch me make them. And no, I won't tell you which butcher I go to.
-
Xjet has make a blog post about it:
https://aardvark.co.nz/daily/2026/0224.shtml
...the cell temperature reached almost 90 degrees C despite a heatsink being attached
Ah, now I understand why Donut wants to strap a motorcycle to the battery, the motorcycle is a heatsink! :-DD
The question is do you want to drive a motorcycle with its battery at 90C :box:
-
if anybody notices the chart
there is a thermal lag time due to the thermal mass and distance to sensor
which means there is a even higher temperature at the core
maybe 100 ? 110 ?
-
I am curious about the heat part of the charging. Is it getting hot because its charging fast? Is that heat (energy) loss linear across charging amps?
If there's heat being lost during charging, how much joules in heat vs how much joules staying inside the device? If I can charge 150kWh in 1min but also waste about the same, 50%eff is not so great. Can boil that down to just amps, 100amps in but 50amps wasted out in heat.
-
...the cell temperature reached almost 90 degrees C despite a heatsink being attached
Ah, now I understand why Donut wants to strap a motorcycle to the battery, the motorcycle is a heatsink! :-DD
The question is do you want to drive a motorcycle with its battery at 90C :box:
Airflow for the win!
-
From the report PDF, it was created by the VTT marketing manager on the 9/2/26, so doesn't look to have been tampered with by Donut Labs
Tampering the document would be absolutely stupid. VTT won't otherwise comment, but if the company published a tampered document they probably would. They would get caught quickly. These guys are not stupid, they know exactly what they are doing and how to manage the publicity.
-
The VTT's report is out:
https://pub-fee113bb711e441db5c353d2d31abbb3.r2.dev/VTT_CR_00092_26.pdf
Again, these testing houses do exactly what you tell them to, nothing more more, nothing less.
What if the cells blow up, would that be in the report ? In the video there seem to be two different cells tested. The cell at 4:36 looks different than the cell at 5:01.
-
One interesting thing to note is how all the discharge tests were only at 1C. Why?
One thing this effectively does is mask the round-trip efficiency to look better than it is. For example, if you calculate round-trip efficiency for the 11C test as 82%, you would quickly assume that oh, at 11C, that means 91% one-way efficiency (because 0.91*0.91 = 0.82). But discharge was not at 11C, but 1C only. So the efficiency for discharge was better, and for charge, it is worse, so the actual efficiency at 11C is closer to 82% than 91%. Maybe 85%.
Seeing that a thin cell needs a massive heatsink on at least one side, producing whopping ~170W (286A*4V*15%) of heat, means this 11C rating is not very practical.
It doesn't need to be, of course; EV market specifically does not need a cell capable of 11C.
Now the question is, how do the best existing commercial off-the-shelf high-power li-ion cells behave at 11C charge? I know these are routinely charged at 4C-5C no problem. And they behave very similarly to Donut's sample when tested at 5C. So could an existing cell be abused at 11C charge for a few cycles, to produce identical results?
-
In the video there seem to be two different cells tested. The cell at 4:36 looks different than the cell at 5:01.
Looks like it's the same cell just turned upside down. See how + and - are swapped, and the small piece of kapton tape is in the same place but opposite side.
-
In the video there seem to be two different cells tested. The cell at 4:36 looks different than the cell at 5:01.
Looks like it's the same cell just turned upside down. See how + and - are swapped, and the small piece of kapton tape is in the same place but opposite side.
Yes, that seems right. I guess I'm getting tired of the subject. Back to work.
-
I am curious about the heat part of the charging. Is it getting hot because its charging fast?
Yes.
Is that heat (energy) loss linear across charging amps?
It usually is linear-ish, for first-order estimate; given constant R, losses are I^2 * R, so energy efficiency drops linearly with power. Then again R is not really a constant, rising temperature increases efficiency (until some point when it doesn't anymore).
If there's heat being lost during charging, how much joules in heat vs how much joules staying inside the device? If I can charge 150kWh in 1min but also waste about the same, 50%eff is not so great
That can be easily calculated from VTT's numbers which I already did above, so 82% round-trip efficiency for the combination of 11C charge and 1C discharge. That would probably mean something like 85% efficiency for the 11C charge and 97% for the 1C discharge, or so. So 82% of joules inside the device and 18% lost as heat.
Eyeballing from the results, the efficiency is OK but not exceptionally great, seems to match state-of-the-art high-power li-ion easily available. For an EV you would never really charge at 11C, you would do most charging at home at 0.1C and sometimes quick charge at maybe 3C-4C, for that 90% efficiency is fine, but needs some active thermal management (basically liquid cooling) like in any other EV.
It walks like a good li-ion cell, it quacks like a good li-ion cell...
-
Quite interestingly, for a high-power lithium ion cell, it would be perfectly normal to see a test cycle like this:
1) Discharge at 11C
2) Charge at 1C
and see peak temperature of approx 90degC during that 11C discharge.
Now for Donut's sample, it seems they have simply reversed discharge and charge.
Li-ion behaves nearly symmetrically (if you allow damage), but li-ion is normally asymmetrically limited: charge power must be lower to prevent lithium plating. Charge temperature range is more limited, too; 90degC may be acceptable during discharge as maximum peak, but for charge the absolute limit would be e.g. 60-70degC.
Now the key question, which I probably repeat the third time, is what happens if you just take a usual li-ion cell and simply swap charge and discharge limits? The slower discharge then allows for an implicit cooling period and increases average efficiency during the round-trip cycle. At 11C charge, some lithium plating is going to happen. But it does not immediately lead to thermal runaway, just accelerated loss of capacity, which could be potentially dangerous if done 50 or 100 times. And some of that lithium plating could be reversible on the next discharge cycle, acting like a secondary lithium metal battery. (Emphasis on the word "some" - that's exactly why we don't do secondary li-metal batteries beyond lab tests, where they are fine for a few cycles). But if you only care about doing 10 cycles, then...
It would be quite easy to rule this sort of scam ("abuse standard li-ion cell") out by doing a cycle life test - I'm sure problems would start popping up well before cycle #500, which you could do, with these C rates, in just two weeks.
And no one really needs the 100 000 cycles. Show us the 400Wh/kg and 500 cycles at 11C, or even 5C charge and we will believe you.
-
if anybody notices the chart
there is a thermal lag time due to the thermal mass and distance to sensor
which means there is a even higher temperature at the core
maybe 100 ? 110 ?
Nice to see that they used the ACT0550 to test it, I was one of the designers of that equipment. Specifically the output driver, we called it the powerboard. Each current channels has a PT100/PT1000/ Thermocouple input, so they likely use that for the measurements.
The charge and discharge rate of a battery is determined by it's ESR. Because ESR will dissipate your power, and that has to go somewhere, or that energy will be used to damage your cell.
I would've liked to see ESR measurements, but we can estimate that from the published data.
At 26A charge discharge, the cell has 90Wh/110Wh = 81% efficiency, 20% losses. So it dissipates 20% of the input power in the ESR, 80% goes into the cell. The input power is 286A*~4V=1136W, and the test is 6 minutes long. So in 6 minutes it dissipates 20Wh, or 200W continuously. We can see why heatsinking is required. P=I*I*R => R = P/I*I=200W/284*284= 2.4 milliohm.
This is for a 26Ah cell. let's compare it with some 18650 cells:
https://lygte-info.dk/review/batteries2012/Intl-outdoor%20NCR18650BD%203200mAh%20%28Black%29%20UK.html
(https://lygte-info.dk/review/batteries2012/Intl-outdoor%20NCR18650BD%203200mAh%20%28Black%29%20UK.html)
This is a 3Ah cell, you need ~8 of them in parallel to reach the same capacity, that pack would have ESR of ~1 mOhm. You can abuse those cells with 11C charging for a test, and it will produce similar charts. I don't see anything out of the ordinary, which solid state batteries would suggest.
In fact I'm going to say that anyone who say they came out with a solid state "cell" is doing something wrong.
At least a decade ago this was the wisdom.
The benefit of the internal construction of a solid state battery is that you can stack the cells just like in a lead acid battery. So you don't make individual cells, like with lithium. You save a lot on the housing. But you save a lot more on the battery formation, which is a lengthy process, that is expensive, and takes hours. It's much less expensive if you can connect 24V blocks to the machine, as opposed to 4V cells.
The savings were estimated 40-50% a decade ago, maybe the economics of this has changed a bit.
This is also where the weight and size and cost savings come from. That instead of individually housing 6 cells, you make a 6 times bigger block with the same thickness of housing. And less balancing, more cost saving.
So why would you even try to make a cell?
-
..not to mention the lack of any evidence that what's been tested is actually solid-state....
-
actually solid-state....
That is a moot point anyway. "Solid state" isn't any sort of rigorous technical or scientific term. It's a marketing label only. "Actually sold-state" is thus meaningless. You can say that with tiny amount of liquid electrolyte within the pores of the plastic separator, possibly even in gel-like form, as in the standard li-ion cell, is "solid state" enough, if you just decide so.
Reputable companies do the exact same shit. When they realized in early 2000's that they can't make Lithium Polymer or LiPo work, they just started to apply the term on their standard pouch format li-ion offering; in big picture, this terminology "scam" did nothing else except create endless confusion, still to this day.
Solid state battery could be the next such term, with or without Donut Lab. But now that Donut Lab has this much press coverage, other li-ion manufacturers are definitely looking into starting to call their cells "solid state" as well, with nothing actually changing.
If Donut Lab actually has a working product, others need to answer to it by saying "we have solid state battery too". And if this is just a scam, others still have an incentive to say "they didn't have it, but we do, look".
-
And no one really needs the 100 000 cycles. Show us the 400Wh/kg and 500 cycles at 11C, or even 5C charge and we will believe you.
Well that depends on what application one has in mind. I am on tho opposite side, I don't care about density (as long as its not significantly less than LFP) but I want those kilocycles and long lifetime. Build the battery together with the house with comparable lifetime for each. I don't want to replace it every 10...15 years or so. I will keep dreaming for now it seems.
-
The benefit of the internal construction of a solid state battery is that you can stack the cells just like in a lead acid battery. So you don't make individual cells, like with lithium. You save a lot on the housing. But you save a lot more on the battery formation, which is a lengthy process, that is expensive, and takes hours. It's much less expensive if you can connect 24V blocks to the machine, as opposed to 4V cells.
The savings were estimated 40-50% a decade ago, maybe the economics of this has changed a bit.
This is also where the weight and size and cost savings come from. That instead of individually housing 6 cells, you make a 6 times bigger block with the same thickness of housing. And less balancing, more cost saving.
So why would you even try to make a cell?
The guy in the lab talks at 2:50 about "typical swelling and shrinking of the SSB ... which can be up to 15-20% of its size". Well apart from the fact that nobody has seen SSB batteries in the wild yet, I suppose this amount of swelling would significantly reduce the number of cells that can be packed together. Of course DL batteries do not have this problem which would amount to yet another brave claim. Gosh this battery must be the best ..
Joke aside, how would these SSB's be used ? Would they need permanent spring (or other material) compression ?
-
In an earlier posting there is a mention of connecting lithium-ion batteries in parallel to configure a battery pack. Is that doable for lithium-ion batteries? I see people mentioning hooking batteries in parallel all the time on various YouTube clips.
I feel quite old-school because I wince whenever I hear about hooking batteries of any kind in parallel. I don't really follow developments in batteries so I don't really know.
Whenever I see batteries hooked up in parallel I feel stress! I imagine huge currents flowing as one battery attacks another battery and they both end up burning up in the fight.
-
In an earlier posting there is a mention of connecting lithium-ion batteries in parallel to configure a battery pack. Is that doable for lithium-ion batteries?
Of course. It's one of the most basic arrangements. It fundamentally does not differ much from having just the same amount of active materials inside one package.
Fundamental requirements are equal enough voltages during the initial connection to avoid excessive currents, and permanent, reliable connection so that the cells are permanently in parallel, acting exactly like one bigger cell. After that, current (and charge level) is shared between the cells just like in one bigger cell. Maybe, in some cases, even better.
-
Well that depends on what application one has in mind. I am on tho opposite side, I don't care about density (as long as its not significantly less than LFP) but I want those kilocycles and long lifetime. Build the battery together with the house with comparable lifetime for each. I don't want to replace it every 10...15 years or so. I will keep dreaming for now it seems.
I would of course take extra cycles but if there is any kind of tradeoff it's rare that more cycles are the highest priority. Todays LiFePo4 cells can last a long time of you treat them nicely.
But more to the point: anyone who actually needs 11C charging would almost certainly be willing to settle for 500 cycles or even fewer. Just probably not 10 cycles.
-
The benefit of the internal construction of a solid state battery is that you can stack the cells just like in a lead acid battery. So you don't make individual cells, like with lithium. You save a lot on the housing. But you save a lot more on the battery formation, which is a lengthy process, that is expensive, and takes hours. It's much less expensive if you can connect 24V blocks to the machine, as opposed to 4V cells.
The savings were estimated 40-50% a decade ago, maybe the economics of this has changed a bit.
This is also where the weight and size and cost savings come from. That instead of individually housing 6 cells, you make a 6 times bigger block with the same thickness of housing. And less balancing, more cost saving.
So why would you even try to make a cell?
The guy in the lab talks at 2:50 about "typical swelling and shrinking of the SSB ... which can be up to 15-20% of its size". Well apart from the fact that nobody has seen SSB batteries in the wild yet, I suppose this amount of swelling would significantly reduce the number of cells that can be packed together. Of course DL batteries do not have this problem which would amount to yet another brave claim. Gosh this battery must be the best ..
Joke aside, how would these SSB's be used ? Would they need permanent spring (or other material) compression ?
I'm not a chemist, but I think swelling is always bad. It's physical movement, the last thing you want to have with a long lasting durable object. There are two ways I know about. One is gas buildup, this is when you need to safely dispose of a battery, or be ready to call a fire brigade. The other is heat expansion. Like a LiFePO4 will swell because the current was high, it heated up, and it's airtight.
None of this sounds good to me, it sounds to me that you are at minimum compromising the lifetime of the battery with foolery, like charging it at 11C.
-
I'm not a chemist, but I think swelling is always bad. It's physical movement, the last thing you want to have with a long lasting durable object. There are two ways I know about. One is gas buildup, this is when you need to safely dispose of a battery, or be ready to call a fire brigade. The other is heat expansion. Like a LiFePO4 will swell because the current was high, it heated up, and it's airtight.
None of this sounds good to me, it sounds to me that you are at minimum compromising the lifetime of the battery with foolery, like charging it at 11C.
Basically all SSB expand and contract because the lithium metal is either on the anode (lots of volume of plated metal) when charged or intercalates into the cathode (negligible expansion because the cathode is so porous) when discharged.
-
I'm not a chemist, but I think swelling is always bad. It's physical movement, the last thing you want to have with a long lasting durable object. There are two ways I know about. One is gas buildup, this is when you need to safely dispose of a battery, or be ready to call a fire brigade. The other is heat expansion. Like a LiFePO4 will swell because the current was high, it heated up, and it's airtight.
None of this sounds good to me, it sounds to me that you are at minimum compromising the lifetime of the battery with foolery, like charging it at 11C.
Basically all SSB expand and contract because the lithium metal is either on the anode (lots of volume of plated metal) when charged or intercalates into the cathode (negligible expansion because the cathode is so porous) when discharged.
And this is one of the most weird aspects in this terminology soup: it appears that many battery professionals / scientists equate:
solid state battery = lithium metal battery
which makes absolutely zero sense at all, but, I guess it's some sort of semi-official convention to some. But expect others not follow it!
Oh well. Lithium metal battery at least has a well-defined meaning! Lithium metal is one of the electrodes, just like in primary lithium batteries (non-rechargeable).
But solid state is like "low noise" - it refers to some fluffy feeling of "no moving parts", or in case of batteries, "no liquids". But it is quite ironical that the things classified as "solid state" batteries in labs exactly suffer from things moving! (Volume changes, making them not so solid.) Then again, similarly, solid state cooling devices (Peltier elements) also die out of mechanical failure, unlike the mechanical compressors which easily last 20 years.
-
[...]
And this is one of the most weird aspects in this terminology soup: it appears that many battery professionals / scientists equate:
solid state battery = lithium metal battery
which makes absolutely zero sense at all, but, I guess it's some sort of semi-official convention to some. But expect others not follow it!
Oh well. Lithium metal battery at least has a well-defined meaning! Lithium metal is one of the electrodes, just like in primary lithium batteries (non-rechargeable).
But solid state is like "low noise" - it refers to some fluffy feeling of "no moving parts", or in case of batteries, "no liquids". But it is quite ironical that the things classified as "solid state" batteries in labs exactly suffer from things moving! (Volume changes, making them not so solid.) Then again, similarly, solid state cooling devices (Peltier elements) also die out of mechanical failure, unlike the mechanical compressors which easily last 20 years.
"Solid state" seems like a beloved attribute major technology shifts: first transistorized radios were "solid state". And there were other uses that I can not recall now but for sure other people on this forum will hop in to mention.
-
Wouldn't it be amazing if all the sceptics were wrong and their claims were right. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
Steve, I hope you're not going all @Electrodynamic on us here!
I.e., don't let that pendulum swing too far away from its skeptical position.
-
Solid, liquid, and gaseous states refer to bulk matter, not necessarily to mechanisms.
My automobile contains all three in their proper places.
-
Wouldn't it be amazing if all the sceptics were wrong and their claims were right. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
Steve, I hope you're not going all @Electrodynamic on us here!
I.e., don't let that pendulum swing too far away from its skeptical position.
:-DD Don't worry, my friend! That's the last thing I would do. No, I was just feeling whimsical and toying with the idea, and actually trying to think of an analogous circumstance where a newcomer has delivered a breakthrough that all the experts in the world said couldn't be done.
Scepticism has served the world of science brilliantly for centuries and I'm proud to be one of the many millions of torchbearers for the principles embodied in the scientific method. I think those principles didn't just underpin science; I think concepts like rationalism, logic, reason, open-minded-but-sceptical, burden of proof, and so on, have permeated into all aspects of society and politics to the enormous benefit of us all.
By casting off the trappings of religion, where "truth" was established by revelation and assertion and resided entirely with the powerful, we have unleashed the power of reason, and reasonableness. For 1600 years Britain was a largely Christian country, and after all that time we were still savages: beheading people, torturing people, enslaving people, and having people be hanged, drawn and quartered.
Then came the Scientific Revolution, followed by the Enlightenment, and look at us now: a secular democracy with the rule of law, sovereignty exercised through a democratic Parliament, freedom of religion and belief, legal equality of all persons, and freedom of expression.
So yes: I subscribe wholeheartedly to scientific and Enlightenment principles and values. Unfortunately significant parts of the world are still where the West was 500 years ago: where religion dominates, "truth" is the domain of the powerful, dogmatism rules over reason, and inequality and oppression is baked into the very fabric of society.
EDIT: Wuh-hey! Who would have thought solid state batteries could lead to a rant like that!
-
tldr: Ordinary Li-Ion cell. Estimated IR of 2 mohm.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H45HXs4xXfA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H45HXs4xXfA)
-
Wouldn't it be amazing if all the sceptics were wrong and their claims were right. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
Steve, I hope you're not going all @Electrodynamic on us here!
I.e., don't let that pendulum swing too far away from its skeptical position.
:-DD Don't worry, my friend! That's the last thing I would do. No, I was just feeling whimsical and toying with the idea, and actually trying to think of an analogous circumstance where a newcomer has delivered a breakthrough that all the experts in the world said couldn't be done.
Well, if you (or anyone else here) can think of any such examples, it'd be interesting to read about them.
I suppose stranger things have happened ...
-
I'm not a chemist, but I think swelling is always bad. It's physical movement, the last thing you want to have with a long lasting durable object. There are two ways I know about. One is gas buildup, this is when you need to safely dispose of a battery, or be ready to call a fire brigade. The other is heat expansion. Like a LiFePO4 will swell because the current was high, it heated up, and it's airtight.
None of this sounds good to me, it sounds to me that you are at minimum compromising the lifetime of the battery with foolery, like charging it at 11C.
Basically all SSB expand and contract because the lithium metal is either on the anode (lots of volume of plated metal) when charged or intercalates into the cathode (negligible expansion because the cathode is so porous) when discharged.
Their main differentiator is solid electrolyte.
The anode or cathode can be whatever. There were many different types already showcased.
-
Seems like Donut Lab is running out of money, and they are now in the "fake it till you can make it" - mode, desperately trying to get new inverstors' money by performing these marketing stunts. Just like Theranos.
-
tldr: Ordinary Li-Ion cell. Estimated IR of 2 mohm.
He made a great analysis clip.
Reading between the lines: Donut Lab has no battery cell and they just sourced a quality "white box" lithium-ion cell from a supplier in China and gave it to the testing lab to test.
-
Reading between the lines: Donut Lab has no battery cell and they just sourced a quality "white box" lithium-ion cell from a supplier in China and gave it to the testing lab to test.
Don't they have some association with some graphene battery research company?
-
Reading between the lines: Donut Lab has no battery cell and they just sourced a quality "white box" lithium-ion cell from a supplier in China and gave it to the testing lab to test.
Don't they have some association with some graphene battery research company?
Yes, the AI summary: The Finnish EV technology company Donut Lab has partnered with and invested in Nordic Nano Group, a company focusing on nanotechnology solutions, to develop advanced energy storage technologies, including the use of nanocarbon materials.
When I look at their website I see a lot of "bla bla bla" but nothing really tangible. So I seriously doubt there is any Nordic Nano Group secret sauce in an alleged Donut Lab battery.
https://www.nordicnano.co/ (https://www.nordicnano.co/)
-
Reading between the lines: Donut Lab has no battery cell and they just sourced a quality "white box" lithium-ion cell from a supplier in China and gave it to the testing lab to test.
Don't they have some association with some graphene battery research company?
CT-Coating AG -> Sana Energy -> Nordic Nano & Donut Lab (& Holyvolt, & maybe others)
https://old.reddit.com/r/DonutLab/comments/1rdsgw5/sana_energy_boss_confirms_that_ctcoating_is_the/o78pfdj/
Ultimately, the technology (assumption it is verifiable) appears to come from CT-Coating who are a research company that have been working on this for a while, Sana is some sort of sales subsidiary of CT, who is licencing and possibly supplying production lines to companies, of which Donut is one.
-
Here is the some kind of current "final conclusion" based solely on the VTT report curves and numerical behavior (without relying on any Donut’s marketing claims):
1) Most likely category: Li-ion intercalation cell (not a supercapacitor)
The voltage range 2.7–4.15 V, maximum 4.3 V, nominal 3.6 V, together with the characteristic CC→CV transition and exponential-like CV current decay, are highly consistent with a Li-ion intercalation cell (such as NMC/NCA/LNMO family or a closely related chemistry).
Based on the voltage vs time and CC-CV behavior alone, this device does not resemble a pure capacitive storage device, nor does it exhibit a fundamentally different voltage profile that would indicate an entirely new electrochemical storage mechanism.
2) What it most likely is: a very low-polarization Li-ion cell with optimized internal structure
Published VTT paper curves clearly show that:
CC phase continues unusually far even at very high C-rates (up to 11C), meaning the terminal voltage does not immediately hit the CV limit.
This implies low total polarization, i.e. low effective internal resistance and/or very efficient ion transport and charge transfer.
Voltage curves remain smooth and stable even at very high current.
This strongly suggests the cell is still fundamentally a Li-ion intercalation system, but with exceptionally well-optimized internal structure, such as:
improved electrode conductivity,
optimized electrode thickness,
enhanced ion transport pathways,
or improved electrode surface structure.
3) Thermal behavior follows classical Li-ion physics
Difference between the one-heatsink and two-heatsink cases behaves exactly as expected from electrochemical and thermal theory:
Hotter cell (one heatsink) shows lower polarization, so during CC charging its voltage can remain lower and the CV phase shortens.
Cooler cell (two heatsinks) maintains higher polarization, so the voltage reaches the limit earlier and the CV tail is longer.
This behavior is entirely consistent with conventional Li-ion cells and does not require any exotic explanation.
4) CV decay time constants ("tau") do not indicate fundamentally new storage mechanism
Calculated CV current decay time constants were approximately:
~2.4–3.9 minutes at 11C,
~4.5–5.8 minutes at 5C (two-heatsink case),
and importantly, the time constant increases at lower current levels, which is characteristic of diffusion-limited behavior near full charge.
This is exactly what is expected from Li-ion intercalation systems.
If this were primarily a supercapacitor-like (including chemical pseudocapacitor) storage mechanism, one would typically expect either:
significantly different voltage vs charge profile, or
very different CV decay behavior.
That is not observed here.
5) What this does NOT rule out
This cell could still be "special" within the Li-ion family. For example:
Anode may be a nanostructured carbon or other advanced structure.
Cathode may be a different composition than conventional NMC111/NMC811.
Internal architecture may be highly optimized for fast ion transport.
This is fully compatible with the observed voltage behavior.
VTT report also does not rule out the possibility that this is a particularly well-performing individual sample rather than representative mass-production performance.
6) What the VTT report does NOT yet provide (and what is critical)
Following key information is missing:
cycle life data at high C-rates,
capacity retention after stress tests,
internal resistance change after cycling,
statistical variation across multiple cells,
energy density (Wh/kg),
differential capacity plots (dQ/dV).
Without these, the long-term durability and true technological novelty cannot be determined.
And then also other note about test arrangement (in these the customer defines what is being tested and possibly also defines at least partially the desired test protocol)
What the minimal cooling setup may implicitly suggest
From an engineering perspective, the relatively modest or even sloppy cooling arrangement*) could be interpreted as a signal that the developer is not overly concerned about the cell’s immediate thermal stability under high charge rates. If the cell were extremely sensitive to temperature, one would normally expect very careful thermal control to avoid overheating or unstable behavior during validation testing.
*) Also note that this is a pouch type cell.
By contrast, demonstrating high-rate charging with only passive heatsinking may implicitly suggest that the cell can tolerate significant thermal stress, at least over short durations, without catastrophic failure or severe instability.
However, there are several possible explanations for this choice of setup:
It may simply reflect a cell-level characterization test, intended to observe the intrinsic limits of the cell rather than demonstrate a production-ready thermal system.
It may be intended to show that the cell’s performance is not highly dependent on sophisticated cooling, which could be advantageous in practical applications.
It may also be a way to demonstrate robustness under less-than-ideal thermal conditions.
At the same time, this type of test alone does not establish long-term durability, cycle life, or degradation behavior at elevated temperatures, which are equally important considerations for real-world use.
In summary, the cooling setup could reasonably be interpreted as suggesting that the developers are confident in the cell’s short-term thermal tolerance, but additional data would be needed to determine its long-term thermal robustness and operational limits.
Next small part of the entire ordered test has been promised to be released on Monday next week. This way of releasing things is not very nice. But it is their chosen strategy, the reasons for which can be varied, both good and bad.
-
Fantastic summary, rf-loop.
Just a few comments from my peanut gallery.
I laugh at myself in an earlier posting wishing that they would use a dumb resistor to verify the energy stored in the battery. My mindset is still caught in the mode of watching amateur "free energy" clips on YouTube from years ago.
On the subject of "free energy" it's somewhat amusing how the majority of the people that make clips can't wrap their minds around what a current source is. That battery tester would be a challenge for them to understand.
Back to the subject matter at hand, I don't know why they didn't use thermal paste between the battery and the heat sink(s). I find that counterintuitive. Also, I am going to guess that there are thin and flat thermocouples with flat wires that could have been embedded in the thermal paste to show temperatures at various points on the battery cell.
I honestly didn't think much about thermal management issues for a real automotive battery pack for high-C charging rates. My first whack at it would be for high-C charging, you pump oil through the battery pack and the heat is dissipated with a radiator and fan, or a part of the car chassis itself acts as a thermal sink.
-
tldr: Ordinary Li-Ion cell. Estimated IR of 2 mohm.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H45HXs4xXfA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H45HXs4xXfA)
Excellent video. Agreed with all points. I even missed the mention of the 90degC safety limit and the stopped test when reading the report. This is one of the smoking guns that it's just an ordinary state-of-the-art li-ion (NMC or NCA) cell.
-
From an engineering perspective, the relatively modest or even sloppy cooling arrangement*) could be interpreted as a signal that the developer is not overly concerned about the cell’s immediate thermal stability under high charge rates. If the cell were extremely sensitive to temperature, one would normally expect very careful thermal control to avoid overheating or unstable behavior during validation testing.
Excellent analysis overall; to this particular point, I believe the trick is:
* Using large enough heatsinks with significant thermal mass (not only surface area)
* Using mere 1C discharge to give implicit cool-down time without having to specify long cool-down periods
* Specifying the "please stop the test if 90degC safety limit is exceeded" condition to me signifies they were somewhat concerned,
* Taking some residual risk of cell failing in the test, of course. That risk did not realize, lucky for them.
-
Here is the some kind of current "final conclusion" based solely on the VTT report curves and numerical behavior (without relying on any Donut’s marketing claims):
1) Most likely category: Li-ion intercalation cell (not a supercapacitor)
Shouldn't the sheer size:weight ratio (density) of the thingy be a clear indicator if its a supe-cap or not, if we are to take a claim of "400Wh/kg" or whatever they claim their tech is?
And doesn't the do-NUT Lab call it a "battery", which is in alignment with "not a supe-cap"?
-
Note that the fist video of the charging of a battery cell that was released at the January CES show was a sham. It showed constant voltage and constant current for most of the charging cycle. It didn't even make any sense. Contrast that to the battery curves from the battery tester unit from the test lab where the curves make sense.
There has been considerable push-back from around the web and on YouTube for the first release in the series of test lab videos.
"Fasten your seatbelts, it's going to be a bumpy night."
Some cool trivia for you: It is ranked 9th on the American Film Institute's list of the 100 greatest movie quotes of all time.
-
* Specifying the "please stop the test if 90degC safety limit is exceeded" condition to me signifies they were somewhat concerned,
Some people have been saying this was a limit imposed by the test lab based on previous experience with lithium ion batteries.
-
* Specifying the "please stop the test if 90degC safety limit is exceeded" condition to me signifies they were somewhat concerned,
Some people have been saying this was a limit imposed by the test lab based on previous experience with lithium ion batteries.
If so, that would mean VTT did not believe their clients' claims of the technology and its higher safety limits :)
It would make sense. VTT could have said, "we can do more expensive testing in a fire-proof container, or we can impose this limit".
-
* Specifying the "please stop the test if 90degC safety limit is exceeded" condition to me signifies they were somewhat concerned,
Some people have been saying this was a limit imposed by the test lab based on previous experience with lithium ion batteries.
If so, that would mean VTT did not believe their clients' claims of the technology and its higher safety limits :)
It would make sense. VTT could have said, "we can do more expensive testing in a fire-proof container, or we can impose this limit".
I wouldn't really pay much attention to that 90 °C cutoff limit in this very carelessly made cooling setup and the placement of the temperature sensors.
The only thing it indicates is that the manufacturer didn't specify any strictly controlled and defined cooling for the test (where the pressure and good thermal contact against the bag cell would be monitored). That just shows that some kind of protective limit has been thrown on the temperature measured from the cell surface somehow under the fold of the side seam and from the some point between the poles at the end of the cell.
Anyone who knows anything about things understands that the actual general internal temperature of the cell and possible hot spots may significantly exceed the temperature detected by that measurement.
Inside that setup, it can easily exceed 100 - 120 °C in some places and if the structure were very "hot spots" favorable, then in something like that then even more.
The only purpose of the test, as far as I understand, was solely to prove that they have at least one cell that appears in the test and that was charged at approximately 1C, 5C and 11C as shown in the report including some measurement data.
Thermal tests, at least that's what I want to believe, will be published later, as they were done for such a battery. Hopefully, they were ordered well-defined and not in a way that was tailored to investment marketing, as was largely the case with this extremely limited charging quick test.
Now then, many have probably heard about the hype about the battery cell that mentions 100 degrees.
The more detailed text next to it is worth reading carefully and taking into account everything that is left unsaid.
It reads like this:
DonutLab web side advertisement txt: "High-temperature test
Validated under sustained high-temperature operation.
Tested above 80 °C, maintaining stable operation without ignition or performance degradation. Even when heating the cell beyond 100 °C, capacity retention remains at over 99%, with no signs of ignition or degradation."
Also in this quick charging speed test conducted by VTT, the limit was set at over 80 °C.
In my opinion, the only thing known at this stage is that, and only that, which is written and included in the VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland Ltd report.
-
I wouldn't really pay much attention to that 90 °C cutoff limit in this very carelessly made cooling setup and the placement of the temperature sensors.
I see that point, but it's also awfully convenient that the one heatsink configuration provided the "best" result and also just _barely_ avoided the 90C cutoff.
It doesn't look like the cooling was well enough controlled for that to be completely deliberate. But I can see it being a bit of a gamble, with spin ready for if the one heat sink configuration test was halted.
-
From that reddit link in #253,
Sana requested post be removed.
So it's no graphene supe cap. Darn.
Just higher density toxic lithium stuff.
Who is "Sana Energy" vs sana.com.es vs sana.com vs sana.energy
Why is CT-Coating new trademark "OMNI COA" ?
Their site is 101% lame https://ctc-ag.com/en/we-about-us.html
SANA/CT sounds to me like Liz Holmes, and the NUTlab is looking for some Walgreens.
"Donut Lab have indicated that the battery chemistry can be adjusted to provide "any" voltage range (presumably within some broad limits), and that the lithium voltages were chosen for backwards compatibility reasons."
"Sana is a German/Spanish company owned by CT-Coating AG, a German company that’s been working on screen printing and nano-paste technology for batteries, solar, heating for decades. There was speculation in this sub (based on various references and leaked NDAs) that Donut’s battery is based on that same tech. Now Sana’s boss has confirmed this is the case."
"Sana Energy is closely connected to Donut Lab's battery technology, but not as a direct partner. The evidence suggests that Sana Energy is a spin-off company of CT-Coating AG, the same entity linked to Donut Lab's battery development.
Key points:
The Sana Energy boss confirmed that CT-Coating is the source of Donut Lab's battery IP.
Sana Energy’s battery specifications (e.g., 452 Wh/kg, 100,000+ cycles) closely match Donut Lab’s claims.
SGS Germany confirmed that Test Report V1PF0004 (linked to Sana Energy) is genuine, while V47W0003 was found to be altered or fake.
A Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) from March 2025 explicitly mentions Donut Lab alongside CT-Coating and Nordic Nano Group.
CT-Coating AG holds the patents related to the battery technology, and its founder, Ernst Hölzenbein, was an eyewitness to the SGS test. "
Sana claims batt tech that uses no Lithium? Hmmmmm.
The investigation revealed that CT-Coating AG owns a 39% stake in Next-Eco, which is the business partner platform hosting the documents. While Sana Energy markets itself as a company developing solar and battery technologies—claiming to produce solid-state batteries that are lithium-free, cobalt-free, and 100% recyclable—its technical and financial ties to CT-Coating AG suggest it operates as part of a broader ecosystem of affiliated companies focused on advanced materials and energy storage. The authenticity of some test reports linked to Sana Energy has been questioned, with SGS confirming that one report (V1PF0004) is genuine, while another (V47W0003) was altered or not genuine
-
The claim that they can tailor the operating voltage of their battery seems highly suspicious to me. I don't believe it.
This business of waiting for the next "reveal" clip is strange. Looking for gullible investors perhaps? The longer you play the game, the more chances there are for finding gullible investors.
-
That voltage claim I suspect is based on CT paste final mixture?
Who knows, maybe they stick it under UV light to fine tune it....... :-DD
Yep, gullible investors, just like Walgreens.
-
Donut Labs
doNUT Labs
NUTlabs
donut buy this
I truly believe they are already losing interest just from their name alone.
-
Here is the some kind of current "final conclusion" based solely on the VTT report curves and numerical behavior (without relying on any Donut’s marketing claims):
[...]
Isn't this just Grok slop? Why is everyone applauding? Everyone already knows Donut hasn't released real cycle life data or any details on the chemistry or supplier.
-
wow what a front page !
Certified efficiencies after years of development
This internet presence is only a medium for contacting us and is not intended to explain our technology. You will receive detailed information about our technology after you have contacted us. A more detailed internet presence is currently being worked on and will be published in a few weeks. The international web presence is also under construction.
basically is just telling everyone to go fxxx off
:-DD
wut do you want?
i dont need no explaining no nutin to you !
:-DD
-
wow what a front page !
Certified efficiencies after years of development
This internet presence is only a medium for contacting us and is not intended to explain our technology. You will receive detailed information about our technology after you have contacted us. A more detailed internet presence is currently being worked on and will be published in a few weeks. The international web presence is also under construction.
basically is just telling everyone to go fxxx off
If they really have what they claim to have then it's pretty easy to prove it with detailed testing videos, no need to drip feed launder through a third party test house.
And the only only two specs that matter in this business are energy density/volume and cycle life.
If you really had the goods and wanted to prove it you'd already have a dedicated life cycle test setup churning out fast cycles day in day out. Hundreds or even thousands of cycles by now, updating characteristic curves on the website. Heck, even a live webcam of the testing.
Yet we get none of that. All we get is that one cell can be 11C charged a few times with a giant heatsink. ::)
-
wow what a front page !
Certified efficiencies after years of development
This internet presence is only a medium for contacting us and is not intended to explain our technology. You will receive detailed information about our technology after you have contacted us. A more detailed internet presence is currently being worked on and will be published in a few weeks. The international web presence is also under construction.
basically is just telling everyone to go fxxx off
:-DD
wut do you want?
i dont need no explaining no nutin to you !
:-DD
I would disagree and this is common business practice.
Have you ever been involved in a tech startup?. As the lead engineer in a tech startup my opinion was that we can please no one. There is no amount of proof which will ever be acceptable other than a technology working right in front of our customer. So I agree with what the company said.
Think about it, if you owned a company and someone was harassing you demanding complete disclosure what would you do?. I would tell them to go to hell and stop harassing me. I told many of the people in our company to go to hell for the same reasons. Unless they are in a need to know position no IP will ever be disclosed even with an NDA. This is true because most people cannot be trusted to keep a secret about anything.
The better question is why do you think your entitled to anything?. Your not paying for complete disclosure only a product which works as claimed. If you buy software do you think your entitled to the source code?. No that's not the way business works.
-
And the only only two specs that matter in this business are energy density/volume and cycle life.
And cost/manufacturability
-
That voltage claim I suspect is based on CT paste final mixture?
Who knows, maybe they stick it under UV light to fine tune it....... :-DD
Yep, gullible investors, just like Walgreens.
Any serious investor will do the due diligence, and sit down with the engineers and test the thing before investing.
Whoever doesn't do that deserves it. It only costs a few thousand EUR/dollars to hire an engineer for a few days to review everything.
Plus, there are actual cars coming out with this in like a year. And the battery is going to be available from the likes of BYD or Samsung. So who is going to buy the tech from some rando?
-
I think the CT webpage was basically abandoned in 2020.
Even the homepage buttons are 404 err
And surely yes, investors would like some basic info before even making contact. A webpage is the way to do that, highlight some basic competences and achievements, links to some test data, etc.
After some more digging, doesnt BYD make it's own batts, even selling to Chery and others.
LFP tech from Gotion High-Tech is only around 280Wh/kg, but they too coin it as "The Jinshi Battery, Gotion’s flagship all-solid-state product".
This all-solid-state BS reminds me of when HD format 1st came to market. Lots of panels were not true HD panels, but they could display HD content using a scaling engine, but the TV box said on it "HD TV". Lies do sell in tech world.
Here's what the labNUTs should be producing on webpage, something like this
Gotion High-Tech has made significant progress in developing its all-solid-state battery technology, marking a key milestone in the commercialization of next-generation EV batteries.
The company has completed a 0.2 GWh pilot production line for its Gemstone all-solid-state battery, achieving a 90% yield rate and 100% localization of core production equipment. This line is operational and used for road testing in prototype vehicles.
The Jinshi Battery, Gotion’s flagship all-solid-state product, features a sulfide-based solid electrolyte and advanced materials including micronized electrolytes, ultra-thin coated single-crystal cathodes, and 3D mesoporous silicon anodes. It achieves an energy density of 350 Wh/kg at the cell level and 280 Wh/kg in the pack, enabling a projected 1,000 km driving range.
The battery has passed rigorous safety tests, including nail penetration, crush, overcharge, and 200°C thermal chamber tests. After 365 days of validation, it showed a 150% increase in cell capacity and a 60% improvement in ionic conductivity of the sulfide electrolyte.
Gotion has begun design work for a 2 GWh mass production line and aims for small-scale vehicle integration by 2027, with full-scale mass production targeted for 2030.
In February 2026, Gotion partnered with BASF to co-develop high-performance materials and overcome technical bottlenecks in solid-state battery commercialization, leveraging BASF’s materials expertise.
The company is also advancing a quasi-solid-state G-Cell battery (300 Wh/kg) with a 12 GWh production line, and a 5C fast-charging Stellary battery that can charge from 10% to 70% in 9 minutes.
-
Here is the some kind of current "final conclusion" based solely on the VTT report curves and numerical behavior (without relying on any Donut’s marketing claims):
[...]
Isn't this just Grok slop? Why is everyone applauding? Everyone already knows Donut hasn't released real cycle life data or any details on the chemistry or supplier.
Slop implies incorrect or misleading or low quality info, its not slop as far as I know (feel free to point anything incorrect out) but it would be nice if rf-loop had stated that it was AI generated instead of posting it as their own words. @rf-loop was this the case or not?
-
The ct-coating website, has been stale from at least 2021 !
It's built using the free site builder Mobirise v5.2.0, which is many version old now.
In year 2026, it does seem too strange for a company doing ground-breaking r&d in innovative lithium tech to not have a well groomed webpage describing what they do, along with achievements, and some fwd looking statements.
It would perhaps be better if ctc-ag.com just went offline, vs keeping an old messy website up.
If something smells fishy, it probably is. :-DD
I not even sure why ct-coating was mentioned, I do not find any info that ct-coating in germany is doing any tech related to lithium.
-
check out this NUTlab post
https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2F50hfbu8y21mg1.jpeg (https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2F50hfbu8y21mg1.jpeg)
Click the View Post button
Reference: https://old.reddit.com/user/DonutLab-ModTeam (https://old.reddit.com/user/DonutLab-ModTeam)
Noted: not sure who user "DonutLab-ModTeam" really is.
-
Is this what we are supposed to see?
-
Is this what we are supposed to see?
The 1st post was removed, but read the replies. That link come from the Reference I listed. In the Reference you can see what the post was.
"I'm thrilled by the whole system, its structure and above all the innovative nanoparticle paste,"
There's also chatter that some AI is involved with all the posting of what seems like BS. Maybe Moltbook escaped?
https://old.reddit.com/r/DonutLab/comments/1rfew4u/why_donut_labs_cost_claim_is_the_most_important/
-
r/DonutLab 1day ago
Go to DonutLab
r/DonutLab
•
1d ago
sparx_fast
What are the core Donut Labs claims?
Trying to collect all the different claims in a simple list. Please reply with any additions or corrections and I will edit. Add citations as necessary.
Donut Lab Battery Claims:
Solid State, No liquid electrolyte. Not a supercapacitor.
No lithium, cobalt, or rare-earth materials
400 Wh/kg energy density
Fast charge in as little as 5 minutes
Can safely charge to 100% and discharge to 0% without damage.
100,000 cycle lifespan
Operates −30°C to 100°C with 99%+ capacity retention, passive cooling only
Lower cost than lithium-ion
Designed to remain safe (no ignition/thermal runaway) when punctured or damaged.
Clay-like design that allows custom sizes, voltages, and geometries. Could be made into a snowflake.
Current ~1 GWh/year production capacity with a Near-term target of 10 GWh/year
Already shipping in Verge Motorcycles TS Pro — first deliveries April 2026
Large OEM interest & multi-billion dollar order pipeline
-
Here is the some kind of current "final conclusion" based solely on the VTT report curves and numerical behavior (without relying on any Donut’s marketing claims):
[...]
Isn't this just Grok slop? Why is everyone applauding? Everyone already knows Donut hasn't released real cycle life data or any details on the chemistry or supplier.
Slop implies incorrect or misleading or low quality info, its not slop as far as I know (feel free to point anything incorrect out) but it would be nice if rf-loop had stated that it was AI generated instead of posting it as their own words. @rf-loop was this the case or not?
@booscrawl, I have always refused and will continue to refuse to use Elon Musk's feces. Period.
In general and untargeted:
Of course, I use artificial intelligence as an assistant to plan and analyze many things with different tools, one of which is artificial intelligence. It is a tool in the same way as a hammer or oscilloscope or a drill. However, when using artificial intelligence, you have to understand the matter yourself and control the artificial intelligence so that you don't let it produce just any nonsense. It is a good and hard-working assistant and secretary. It is not a good, wise boss. You have to know how to define a task for it and you have to know how to guide it in that task, just like you have to know how to use any tool correctly.
Yes, you can do damage and mistakes with a drill and you can see fairy tales with an oscilloscope if you don't know how to use it. The same applies to some very advanced artificial intelligence as a tool.
We analyzed all those curves quite carefully with the resolution that was available from the pdf document (i.e. we converted them back to a data set, which of course has an embarrassingly poor resolution and accuracy) and the numerical values published in it.
The purpose was to try to rule out different options that the battery structure and chemistry apparently does not have and what different possibilities there are in terms of its chemistry and structure that would fit the "model" that can be deduced from the data and images, and because the one published tiny bit of test data (so far) is the only thing that is really known about it, before more is made public.
Of course, things will change when more real data comes out. So far, almost everything has been just marketing hype with no knowledge of the reality. I'm not at all surprised that so far it has seemed like some kind of fundraising scam. It's a bit like try collect as much money as possible and exit. Let's hope that's not the case.
Much more real data is needed to confirm the claims before the doubts are dispelled. It's hard to understand why they are so keen to create doubts.
As stated earlier, the only thing that is certain is that one cell has delivered the published data in a very limited small download speed test. Nothing else is really known.
There are some conclusions that can be drawn from this, and they are all quite uncertain due to the lack of enough data.
The mere fact that the battery cell charging speed test was ordered to be so extremely limited and simple seems quite worrying. Is the VVT name being used here to create an image of something more significant than reality? That remains to be seen. The prediction is not the best possible when comparing the real, fairly certain data given so far and the marketing hype.
-
I wonder if all this farting about with a countdown and shit is a way of buying time. I wonder if the CEO has decided to announce something that doesn't exist yet - for the glory of it - expecting that if he puts his dev guys under enough pressure they'll eventually come up with the goods.
I've come across bosses like that: bosses who think anything is possible - it's just about applying enough pressure to their workers. These bosses see themselves as visionary leaders; they think any talk about whether something is actually possible is a sign of weakness and lack of commitment.
-
I wonder if all this farting about with a countdown and shit is a way of buying time.
No shit Sherlock ;D
That's how all these scams work. Milk the cow as long as possible. And they are playing this very well. 99.9% of battery scams have failed to get any money at all.
Now it's interesting to see how it plays out from now on. Their first report have exactly the effect they planned it to have: for non-experts it seems to surficially verify some of the key claims, and it has this "tested by VTT" effect in itself, and that works to some extent regardless of what the report says.
Then again, even mainstream media is already full of actual experts saying that this report does not look very good for them: mainly the suspicion this is just regular li-ion cell, fully opposite to their central claims, underwhelming internal resistance, and the overheating issue.
And investors also read what others have said about that report.
-
I wonder if all this farting about with a countdown and shit is a way of buying time.
No shit Sherlock ;D
That's how all these scams work. Milk the cow as long as possible. And they are playing this very well. 99.9% of battery scams have failed to get any money at all.
No, I don't mean buy time to milk money from investors. I mean buying time to develop the product.
-
Next reveal in few minutes, I didn't bother buying popcorn, but this should still be interesting.
https://idonutbelieve.com/
-
Next reveal in few minutes, I didn't bother buying popcorn, but this should still be interesting.
https://idonutbelieve.com/
Well this VTT report (https://pub-fee113bb711e441db5c353d2d31abbb3.r2.dev/VTT_CR_00092_26.pdf), linked from there, says it's a 94Wh battery, just under the 100Wh you can take on aircraft. So, a standard power bank.
-
For anyone who still wants to believe, here's the part two video. I don't know how to embed anything because I'm just a lurker, but here's the link. Also not an electric engineer, so I'm not reading the study, I'll read the aftermath once this part 2 starts taking traction.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3zbpym6-1U (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3zbpym6-1U)
-
Apparently the pouch ruptured (lost its vacuum) during the high temperature test.
So much for them implying it will not swell during use as claimed between 2:15 and 3:30 in the previous fast charge test video.
-
So, folks, it's looking quite impressive thus far?
-
So, folks, it's looking quite impressive thus far?
Wut? Looks the most unimpressive thing. Any li-ion cell discharges at 0.5C at 100degC. The second report is even more underwhelming than the first one - especially since the cell failed during the test.
Still no weight. My guess is that it's only downhill from here, those few who are still believing stop believing one by one.
-
.... those few who are still believing stop believing one by one.
Are there any believers? Everything I've read - every comment - has been disbelief. It seems the CEO is the only person who believes (and maybe not even him).
-
Cell is most damaged during charge cycle at high temperature, so only testing discharging was clearly deliberate, and only doing one cycle. From what I can see a normal li-ion cell would lose ~40% capacity in two full cycles at 100C.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9753165/
https://blog.epectec.com/battery-charging-and-discharging-at-high-and-low-temperatures
In general and untargeted:
Of course, I use artificial intelligence as an assistant to plan and analyze many things with different tools, one of which is artificial intelligence. It is a tool in the same way as a hammer or oscilloscope or a drill. However, when using artificial intelligence, you have to understand the matter yourself and control the artificial intelligence so that you don't let it produce just any nonsense. It is a good and hard-working assistant and secretary. It is not a good, wise boss. You have to know how to define a task for it and you have to know how to guide it in that task, just like you have to know how to use any tool correctly.
But the top half of your post was *written* by AI, as far as I can tell. Your other posts seem to be your own writing.
If you are going to copy paste AI output please quote it or differentiate in some way it from the rest of your post. If you did write it, not sure whats up with all the line breaks and formatting.
-
Maybe nutLAB is deep in loan repay promises, and to stay afloat they are hyping what they think they can in have with just a little more time, with a little cash flow?
The videos are something, but perhaps not what we are expecting.
I do also suspect, if some breakthrough batt tech based on some new nano paste was to come to light, the labNUTs probably not the ones to bring it to market.
Prove me wrong.
-
The skepticism in thread is totally justified, especially when those "miracle" specs seem to bend the laws of physics. It’s hard not to get "Theranos vibes" when a company claims to have perfected solid-state tech overnight while the rest of the industry is still struggling to get out of the lab.
-
"miracle" specs seem to bend the laws of physics
Oh, not by any means. There is absolutely no any fundamental physical law being bent. Batteries with similar specifications will likely be available at some point - it is all about finding the right materials, construction techniques, and all the difficult manufacturing details. They have actually carefully chosen their specifications so that none of them is that outrageous in isolation - but all put together, is something that does not currently exist.
With some claims, they went overboard just for giggles - like, instead of 100 000 cycles, "just" 10 000 cycles would be equally good in practice. If cheap and lightweight battery is available, that would mean large capacity. And that capacity alone would mean it not being cycled that much, so maybe 1 cycle / day would be extreme top end. So ~30 years with 10 000 cycles, if calendar life is there.
And to be clear, my personal guess is they don't have any prototype of any type of battery really, and no plans of any kind to design one. Just samples of regular off-the-shelf li-ion, from any manufacturer, that they are abusing in tests.
Some seem to still believe they are a company with some sort of plan to actually develop new battery technology and just buying time in "fake it until you make it" fashion. Maybe that's a remote possibility, but I don't believe that. Their "manufacturing" site is empty. No one in the industry knows any battery chemist that works for them. And so on.
-
With some claims, they went overboard just for giggles - like, instead of 100 000 cycles, "just" 10 000 cycles would be equally good in practice. If cheap and lightweight battery is available, that would mean large capacity. And that capacity alone would mean it not being cycled that much, so maybe 1 cycle / day would be extreme top end. So ~30 years with 10 000 cycles, if calendar life is there.
If we think about vehicle batteries, that is true.
However, we must also remember how the cycle life behaves.
It is a completely different thing if we are talking about one real SoC 0-100% cycle than a hundred SoC 50-51% charge, which would correspond to one cycle (which in reality is much different), also taking into account other variables that affect the cycle life.
Batteries are or would be needed for other applications as well, and at high currents a huge number of cycles would be potentially downright revolutionary. For example, distributed regulation of the electricity grid, where large batteries would be a significant part of the regulation, spread over a wide area of the grid. If something like this were implemented on a huge scale, it could be truly revolutionary in large electricity grids, where there are increasingly fast, high-power production and consumption fluctuations. Today, there is already a latent shortage of regulation capacity in many places, and this applies to the traditional consumption structure of the electricity grid.
Electric vehicles bring something new to this too. Especially as they are constantly developing and increasing. Likewise, other than the so-called traditional classical (water, fossil fuel combustion and combined power) electricity production methods. Wind and solar power basically require regulation power for their entire power, part of which problem is now visible in the electricity exchanges.
There will be more electric cars, and their charging powers will increase, battery systems will increase (and unfortunately also consumption per driving distance), there will still be more wind and solar power, traditional hydropower and nuclear power will still exist... then there is also the export and import of electricity. Regulating the balance of the electricity grid is a huge issue. If there were a large number of large batteries distributed there that could be continuously charged and discharged very quickly, it would change the whole game to a completely new level. The durability of the cycles, the discharge and the charging speed are quite significant in this application. We could be talking about things of completely different magnitudes than in the case of a single electric vehicle.
That 100,000 would already be pretty good in this regard. It's not even a big dream. Especially when we take practical cycles and not just cycles under ideal laboratory conditions.
It should also be noted that both discharge and charge must be possible with a high C-value. Now we are only talking about relatively high C-values for charging alone. In addition, the batteries should also be very safe when used for fast grid balancing.
It was also a little confusing that the cell used in the first and second tests was not the same. Why? Did the cell marked DL3 break or get damaged in the first test, or was the person who commissioned the test afraid that it would happen. That is not a good sign either. Now the cell DL2 used in the second test broke. (The bag of the bag cell broke, meaning the cell is damaged, although it still somehow worked afterwards.)
So far, no evidence has been presented of any world-changing battery invention. In fact, it has even been refuted to some extent when looking at the very limited and, in other words, very incomplete data that has been obtained so far. This does not look good now. And if the tests continue to be so extremely limited, downright minimalist, skepticism will only grow.
Do they believe that some investors would not understand anything other than "the product has been tested by VTT"? Of course, everyone knows that a certain amount of money is also in the so-called weak hands.
-
If there's no claim of 1mil cycles, then it's not a supercap of any kind.
If the LABnuts mentioned 5,000 or 10,000 or even wild 100,000 cycles, then it's almost definitely a wet lithium battery.
-
Batteries are or would be needed for other applications as well, and at high currents a huge number of cycles would be potentially downright revolutionary. For example, distributed regulation of the electricity grid, where large batteries would be a significant part of the regulation, spread over a wide area of the grid.
Nah, we do exactly that, and the trend is the opposite to what you think it is - towards larger capacity, more energy, not so much power in comparison. While there is some need for high speed regulation (currently provided by STATCOMs, inertia and yes, to some extent, by batteries), the power and especially energy involved in the fast regulation loop is rather small. This is because in a grid, short-term effects average out. What happens at minute scale is just noise. But what happens at 15-minute, 1-hour, 1-day scale is far from noise, it shows large trends as function of prediction errors, maintenance, weather, behavioral patterns.
Like, for example, for PV production, a cloud can suddenly cease the production, but it does not happen everywhere at the same second. But during an hour, it can happen over a large area. That's the interesting timescale.
It is true that need for grid-scale energy storage is increasing (see e.g. Fingrid https://www.fingridlehti.fi/reservien-tarve-kasvaa-kohisten/ (https://www.fingridlehti.fi/reservien-tarve-kasvaa-kohisten/) , the image every salesman is showing to their residential to-be-customers to sell them our, or our competitor's box; ours is the best of course :D), but that increase is almost solely in mFRR (which none of the home battery reserve providers do, we neither), spot energy trading and intraday energy trading. All of which are high-energy, slow assets with large capacity requirement and not that much C-rate involved.
The large need for aFRR, mFRR, intraday energy arises from prediction errors especially in wind forecasts which are done day before for spot markets. Say, e.g. in such small country as Finland, you predicted 4GW of wind and you got 3GW or 5GW. Or, you predicted that the wind ramps down at 7:00AM but it does so already at 6:30AM. So now you would be discharging 1GW for 30 minutes, then afterwards slowly recharging.
While I mention Finland, the same physical reality, and same or similar markets are of course in larger grids, e.g. the Continental Europe Synchronous Area which is a huge grid.
These hour-scale effects are large and energy-heavy. So any large battery asset would be multimarket-optimized, combining whatever balancing periods are most profitable (i.e., most needed). And the typical battery of today is rated to 0.5C or at max 1C, and battery design is not the limiting factor at all, we could well have 2C capable grid batteries already with LFP or Na-ion but we don't usually need that rating.
And as such a battery traded optimally to all these markets could maybe see 10-20 "cycles" during a day, but those cycles would be with small DOD% so the wear would not be equivalent even of 1 full cycle. Or, in a different market situation even more energy would be needed (e.g., trading energy between night and day), so the cycle would be larger, but then it's also fewer cycles.
So a typical use case for a grid battery could be 1 nearly full cycle for a day plus a dozen of microcycles during the day.
For this we currently use LFP mostly and it already does great job, and financials seem to work out. Only small % is in the cost of the cells, and that is, we are taking the whole lifetime into account.
So, maybe, if we could increase the nominal full-cycle life rating of a typical LFP cell, say, from 3000-5000 cycles to 10000 cycles, it would be nice I guess, but I have hard time imagining other than niche needs for a 10C, 100000-cycle battery, including grid and behind-the-meter balancing/optimization, because a 2C battery 5 times larger, or 1C battery 10 times larger does the same power, and much more.
This is basically the same discussion as in 2010 when many experts were certain that all we need are 15-20kWh EV batteries that charge at 10-20C, and it was actually quite innovative from early Tesla to show a proof-of-concept that what we actually need is more capacity, and high charge power then comes as an extra, even with lower C rate.
The same is true in power system / grid balancing, we need more and more capacity, and once we have that, the short-term power just comes for free, and does not wear out the battery, because the depth-of-cycle for those short peaks is so tiny.
Conclusion: for mobility, energy density AND price / kWh over the lifetime are still the most relevant. For stationary, price / kWh over the lifetime, not so much energy density.
-
I have read like 7 donut news in Finnish language since part 2, and leaked investor-only emails, using my rss feed. Just been too lazy to save them I might have to go to my history and try to find something.
-
This is basically the same discussion as in 2010 when many experts were certain that all we need are 15-20kWh EV batteries that charge at 10-20C, and it was actually quite innovative from early Tesla to show a proof-of-concept that what we actually need is more capacity, and high charge power then comes as an extra, even with lower C rate.
The same is true in power system / grid balancing, we need more and more capacity, and once we have that, the short-term power just comes for free, and does not wear out the battery, because the depth-of-cycle for those short peaks is so tiny.
Conclusion: for mobility, energy density AND price / kWh over the lifetime are still the most relevant. For stationary, price / kWh over the lifetime, not so much energy density.
To be fair to the "experts" -- the earlier generations of EVs and PHEVs used NiMH or even lead acid batteries (the original EV1 for instance). The assumption wasn't that larger capacity wasn't desirable, it was that fast charging would be cheaper than high capacity because there is a very direct relation between capacity, weight, and cost. Lead is very heavy and nickel is somewhat heavy and very expensive. At that time lithium ion batteries were still new, expensive, and small. But ultimately their raw materials were cheaper and lighter than the other batteries which is what enabled the dramatic cost reduction over the last 15 years and made it practical to make a choice between capacity and charge rate.
So it was an understandable mistake (or maybe misprediction?) in 2010. What's annoying is that people keep making that mistake in 2026, like the last 2 decades of battery advancements never happened.
-
Everything I say may be wrong It's friday I got other business as well, I'm pulling from memory and I wont link anything unless someone asks:
Their founders are two Finns, but registered their company to Estonia (a country that will soon be annexed to Finland, the only country in the world that said publicly that Finland is a superpower, similar language similar culture)
A guy from a Germany, a nanomaterials company leaked companionship with Donut Lab, then later deleted the post in LinkedIn. They make the machines, Donut Lab has the science and materials. Verge motorcycles simply joined them when they were introduced the tech (if it even exist).
A finnish professor (female) made every single counter argument against their data, and public announcements as everyone on this forum, plus went even deeper, because it's her field, she knows far beyond anyone of you, and she is far more sceptical as you are. But curious.
I will post the part 3 monday, because me getting home from chefs work is simply perfectly timed with their release schedule.
-
The search term: Donut Lab has been targeting small, independent investors promising high returns
The AI summary:
Donut Lab, a Helsinki-based startup founded in 2024, has been criticized by industry experts and investors for employing aggressive, unconventional fundraising tactics aimed at small, independent investors. The company has been accused of promising "10x" or "5x" returns within a few months and using high-pressure, urgent sales tactics that resemble a "snake oil" pitch, according to prominent Finnish investors.
Dubious Investment Pitch: Reports indicate Donut Lab has been targeting individual investors, rather than institutional capital, with promises of exceptionally high, rapid returns.
Red Flags: Critics point to a lack of patents, a very thin company history (founded in 2024), and the, at the time, small staff of around nine people as evidence that the claims are not legitimate.
Suspicious Tactics: Investors noted that the company, which is a spin-off of Verge Motorcycles, has pushed for urgent funding while promising to be worth "hundreds of billions of dollars" soon, aiming to bypass standard due diligence.
-
Stop using AI, there is a wealth of real information available, like I heard they have gotten contacted by 3000+ companies, made 1,3b€ in contracts (dont quote me on that), and they expect to expand rapidly, and have plans. So hearing some guy say "they want youtube ad revenue" is kinda silly to me. Is it a scam? No I Donut know...
Here is one source go translate.google.com (http://translate.google.com) and use https://yle.fi/a/74-20212167 (https://yle.fi/a/74-20212167)
-
Stop using AI, there is a wealth of real information available, like I heard they have gotten contacted by 3000+ companies, made 1,3b€ in contracts (dont quote me on that), and they expect to expand rapidly, and have plans. So hearing some guy say "they want youtube ad revenue" is kinda silly to me. Is it a scam? No I Donut know...
Here is one source go translate.google.com (http://translate.google.com) and use https://yle.fi/a/74-20212167 (https://yle.fi/a/74-20212167)
In this case I just used AI to back up my common sense and life experience. I don't know why you are referring to YouTube ad revenue.
I previously posted that I thought they were looking for money from gullible investors.
-
It sounded like a classic investment scam before but maybe they've figured out scamming companies directly via some kind of purchase agreement or up front deposit would work too. Would be interesting to see what these potential customers agreed to or what contracts they signed.
At the CES fair in January, demand increased exponentially. In just six weeks since the launch of Donut Lab's new engines, we have generated a pipeline of more than 1.2 billion euros with more than 350 potential customers – and it is growing weekly. This is amazing!”, writes Lehtimäki.
-
It is hard to take seriously a comical CEO character wearing a baseball hat with a suit.
-
Maybe I assume everyone who is in this thread has read the whole thread lol. I've learned the culture in this site, its users are becoming lazier and lazier and use more and more AI, and I'm one of the anti-AI. I chose my side. I've delved through Copilot and Google and ChatGPT and almost falling victim to them, thinking they're your friends, I downgraded back to Windows 10 and let go of AI assistants, at least when I make my own forum posts, I'm however trying vibe coding, for my own purposes, so I don't care about security holes so much, lol also.
-
Maybe I assume everyone who is in this thread has read the whole thread lol. I've learned the culture in this site, its users are becoming lazier and lazier and use more and more AI, and I'm one of the anti-AI. I chose my side. I've delved through Copilot and Google and ChatGPT and almost falling victim to them, thinking they're your friends, I downgraded back to Windows 10 and let go of AI assistants, at least when I make my own forum posts, I'm however trying vibe coding, for my own purposes, so I don't care about security holes so much, lol also.
If you want AI vs anti-AI, you're in the wrong thread.
There's a whole board here: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chatgptai/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chatgptai/)
And a thread in General Technical Chat: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/ai-intelligence/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/ai-intelligence/)
-
Donut labs need to get Elon Musk involved. It could go from a red flagged investment scam to a long term 5D chess move in record time. Maybe a self-driving battery powered boring machine with flame throwers controlled by orbital AI. I'm sure his fan club would drop billions into it.
-
There goes this thread off the rails...
[attach=1]
-
get ready, 3 min
-
In this hour of derailment, we only taste donut. (sorry i consume too much halo cutscene movies).
Part three is now released, let's continue our most hated favourite topic with Choo Choo train back on track: (also i sincerely i hope i linked the right link, it says premiere but that should still be it).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77kF5GEnQM8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77kF5GEnQM8)
https://idonutbelieve.com/ (https://idonutbelieve.com/)
-
Still they haven't put the battery on a kitchen scale to demonstrate the only thing that matters.
Nor have they addressed the only issue with charge rate, and that is "can the relatively high charge rate be used without excessively damaging the battery". I don't honestly thing the charge rate is that important for 95% of applications, but if you care about that you probably want the cell to last more than 10 cycles. They should be able to do 50 cycles of 10%-90% charge cycles at 11C in a week. That's leaving time for 1C discharging and letting the cell cool back down before charging again. Doing that would also probably mean leaving the system unattended, which would really put their money where there mouth is in terms of not starting a fire.
-
Discussion with battery electrochemist Dr. Euan McTurk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wl7fRHlygSo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wl7fRHlygSo)
-
Still they haven't put the battery on a kitchen scale to demonstrate the only thing that matters.
Cycles is what really matters. Imagine having some super-dooper Lithium paste goo that has 1000Wh/kg, but you can only cycle it 5x.
They have made no claims of cycling ability above what Lithium chemistry can do.
It appears to be just toxic lithium tech, so I am not interested in it, and neither should be investors, because the market is already full of lithium batt producing makers.
If the doNUT folks have some niche way in application (small road bikes, electric bicycles, other smaller transport, then so be it. It does not appear that the doNUT folks are actually inventing/innovating Li batt tech, and at best just trying to play ketchup on batt energy density using 3rd party tech.
If they had something interesting, then the silly vids would not be so silly.
-
I already figured this out, ur 10 hours late.
-
Cycles is what really matters. Imagine having some super-dooper Lithium paste goo that has 1000Wh/kg, but you can only cycle it 5x.
As per the VTT report (https://pub-c28f91e335744259a8c0ce38e3967177.r2.dev/VTT_CR_00125_26.pdf) on the self discharge:
"Variations in ambient temperature were caused by other cells being cycled in the same fume hood."
so they have been conducting cycle testing.
If you look at the graphs of temperature in that document, they seem to be doing a reasonable amount of cycling, assuming that one cycle is two heat peaks (charge, discharge), then they seem to have been doing about 1.5 cycles an hour.
Time will tell, but have to say this dragging it out is becoming very annoying and tedious.
-
The dimensions of the battery in the video are below. The kW/volume is 720Wh/cm3. Does this match what Donut lab says? I can’t find info for the power per volume.
Metric
170mm x 70mm x 10mm (LxWxH)
119 cm3
Imperial
6.7in x 2.75in x 0.4in (LxWxH)
7.4 in3
720Wh/cm3 (86Wh / 119cm3 = 720Wh/cm3)
The dimensions are from the environmental chamber model.
-
So, is an usual li-ion cell, but self-discharges 10-100x more than usual li-ion cell? So just a very crappy li-ion cell? This makes me wonder if, after all, this is their own product, because it's hard to source a cell this crappy, even from Aliexpress?
-
The dimensions of the battery in the video are below. The kW/volume is 720Wh/cm3. Does this match what Donut lab says? I can’t find info for the power per volume.
was it not 450Wh/kg , for the new nano paste said to be in it?
-
The dimensions of the battery in the video are below. The kW/volume is 720Wh/cm3. Does this match what Donut lab says? I can’t find info for the power per volume.
They never gave a volumetric energy density.
Industry standard is Wh/L which I already calculated earlier (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/dodgy-technology/donut-lab-alleged-solid-state-battery-launched-at-ces-2026/msg6197643/#msg6197643) in the thread as roughly 700Wh/L. Your figure would be 722Wh/L. Which is exactly what decent off the shelf 21700 cells are (Molicel INR-21700-P50B). Nothing special there.
So that pack must be extremely light if it will be 400Wh/kg which is really unlikely.
-
At 400Wh/kg,
Using the lightweight paste, it's 400/833, 0.48Wh/cu.cm, or 480Wh/L.
The heavier paste would be near 719Wh/L.
AI says:
Based on typical battery manufacturing data, lithium battery paste (a slurry of active materials, binder, and solvent) has a density that varies depending on formulation, but is generally in the range of 1.2 to 1.8 g/cm³.
Using this range:
At 1.2 g/cm³, 1 kg (1000 g) of paste would occupy ~833 mL or 0.833 L.
At 1.8 g/cm³, it would occupy ~556 mL or 0.556 L.
Thus, 1 kg of lithium battery paste typically occupies between 0.56 and 0.83 liters, depending on the paste formulation and density. This volume is not directly related to the final battery’s energy density or weight, as the paste is part of the electrode and undergoes drying and processing during cell manufacturing
-
So, is an usual li-ion cell, but self-discharges 10-100x more than usual li-ion cell? So just a very crappy li-ion cell? This makes me wonder if, after all, this is their own product, because it's hard to source a cell this crappy, even from Aliexpress?
Did you notice that the actual self-discharge was not measured at all in this test?
Here, the stated amount of Ah was charged and waited for 10 days, and then the amount of Ah released during the discharge was measured with 1C discharge until the 2.7V reached during the discharge. This is not how real self-discharge should really be measured.
Something below 0.1C or a much lower level in the charge and discharge would have given a bit closer to the correct result. Also 240h cell rest time is very short for look true self-discharge.
It is also there within the obtained result, but only as a small part of the entire result
However, when you look at the voltage curve over the entire time, it also tells quite a lot.
First 0 - 10 hour -116 mV (this is more like mainly chemical balancing (diffusion stabilization in electrodes) etc after 1C charging)
Next 230 hour only -12 mV
How about next 240 hour perhaps -3 ... -4 mV (now we are in range where we can start reliable measure real long time true self-discharge)
If you extrapolate the same curve forward, it will not discharge very badly in the long run.
Looks like typical normal NMC battery self discharge.
A good normal NMC battery will not discharge very badly. For example, the self discharge of my own car battery is in the 1% 4000h range. (I tested it myself by putting the car to "deep" sleep for about 4000 hours! Using a mid-range SoC%, of course that test was done in such a way that a very rough estimate could be that the average temperature for the entire test period was perhaps somewhere around 2 - 6 degrees)
The whole DL/VTT this test setup (VTT-CR-00125-26) seems to have been that Donut Lab just only wanted to "prove" in this extremely rough and quick way that the circulating suspicions floating around that it is maybe a physical supercapacitor. Such claims or doubts are complete bullshit.
Why did they even need to start proving this because it was clear from the first test if one understood the little data that was told about it in the VTT report.
Naturally, now more clearly proven
So far, all the tests (VTT 1, 2 and now 3) have been extremely minimalistic and even rudimentary "hobbyist level" small experiments. The only thing that differs is that the tests have been done by VTT with reliable measuring devices and personnel, so we can believe that the numbers are correct. But VTT does nothing but only what Donut Lab has bought from them and defined how it wants to be tested. And that's the big problem here.
If VTT were given free rein and the budget to really study these batteries, their behavior, their structure, and various properties etc... i.e. proper research.... Well, I understand that Donut Lab has no desire for that. So far, VTT data shows no signs of any revolutionary new battery. On the contrary. Those who can read VTT data and only that...
I would say it's starting to feel mostly like watching poor stand up comics when a DonutLab employee talks about batteries that are revolutionizing the world.
-
looks like this week release was too weak, but guess who will be here at next week giving u latest updates
but if their "proofs" become weaker as it maybe is becoming??! hmm should i quit or continue?
i think i should continue
-
An interesting read.
https://s3images.coroflot.com/user_files/individual_files/original_pdf_221275_mbm9je8xj0qgxtvx5f0ga0f3q.pdf
-
Those timelines are interesting!
WHOOSH! WHOOSH! WHOOSH!
Even those from the big players like Toyota.
-
Guess what time it is? It is our long-awaited (by me and myself) part four Doughnut accumulator release:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xp2T7gGHK6s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xp2T7gGHK6s)
To contribute more to the topic, here are few battery emojis, i hope you like them. 🔋🔋🔋 🐷🐖🐽
https://idonutbelieve.com/ (https://idonutbelieve.com/)
-
So far, all the tests (VTT 1, 2 and now 3) have been extremely minimalistic and even rudimentary "hobbyist level" small experiments.
It's not even that. The tests are just not covering the most significant claims. A hobbyist could easily do much better tests. As you say, the results might be more questionable accuracy but at least they would test the claims.
If VTT were given free rein and the budget to really study these batteries, their behavior, their structure, and various properties etc... i.e. proper research.
That's not really their purpose in a situation like this. Yes, VTT is a research institute and is capable of doing research, but donut labs claims they already have a product. The "research" should already be done. We just need proper product testing to show that it meets the claims or not.
-
Donut Lab put its battery in a Verge motorcycle – Here's how it charged
Donut Lab's fourth VTT report is not a laboratory test at VTT. Instead, Donut Lab published a charging test of the Verge TS Pro electric motorcycle with a fast charger.
Now, in its fourth announcement, the company is publicly demonstrating the functionality of the battery in a vehicle at the battery pack level for the first time, in other words, in the Verge electric motorcycle connected to Donut Lab.
Donut Lab boasts in its press release that exceptionally fast charging, in under ten minutes, is possible for a motorcycle. The fast charging test used a previous generation Verge motorcycle, fitted with a new model year battery pack, in other words, Donut Lab's miracle battery.
The battery pack is said to have a nominal capacity of 18 kilowatt-hours. Donut Lab says the battery pack charges three times faster than Verge's previous battery. According to the press release, the results will be even better after Verge's optimization.
In Donut Lab's test, the motorcycle battery was charged using a public fast charger. The company says that the battery pack temperature is around 20 degrees Celsius at the start of the test. During the charging session, a peak charging power of over 100 kW (5C charging rate) is maintained for five minutes, during which the bike's battery charge increases from 10 percent to 50 percent.
The press release states that a 10–70 percent charge level is reached in just over 9 minutes, and 10–80 percent in 12 minutes. In the test, the bike reached a speed of 5C, which is a very respectable figure for an air-cooled motorcycle battery.
– This is the first test we have published to the general public that demonstrates the performance and behavior of multiple battery cells in a real vehicle environment. The high energy density of our battery technology enables flexible battery pack design and superior performance even in more challenging applications, such as motorcycles, where space is limited and system simplicity is key. We are able to offer vehicle manufacturers packs with different energy capacities in the same physical size, even the smallest of which have very high capacities, says Ville Piippo, CTO of Donut Lab.
Charging session in video
The video published by the company shows how the charging process works. The behavior in the video matches the figures in Donut Lab's press release. The battery reaches an 80 percent charge level in 12 minutes. Donut Lab itself does not disclose the average charging power, but it can be calculated based on the amount of energy charged and the time used. In this case, the average power for a 10–80 percent charging session is 69.3 kW.
The charging session looks plausible at first glance in the video. In our experience, the charging screen of the charger brand in question is the one shown in the video. The camera filming the charging screen up close is not visible in the footage shot from a distance, which would indicate that the sessions were recorded at different times.
The Verge factory is located in Estonia. Judging from the Donut Lab video, the motorcycle charging test was conducted at the Irun Circle K station in Tallinn, which is the geographically closest station to the Verge factory building.
No VTT report at all
Donut Lab previously strongly implied that the company's test series would only apply to VTT test reports. Now, however, the fourth test is not related to the VTT report in any way, and the VTT report is not available for download at all on the company's Idonutbelieve website. A new countdown has been launched on the website for the week, meaning that even more video reports are coming.
The report published last week was quite anticlimax in the eyes of the general public. The report only proved a single myth, namely that the Donut Lab battery is not a supercapacitor. Analysts agreed with the tests. Juho Heiska, head of research and development at Seinäjoki University of Applied Sciences, already stated based on the first report that it is not a supercapacitor. In other words, the third test was, in hindsight, a bit pointless.
Problems in previous tests
In the tests conducted by VTT, not everything went exactly according to the script set by Donut Lab. In the first test, which measured the battery charging speed, the Donut Lab battery heated up considerably, and the test had to be interrupted. In the second, a charging test in hot conditions, the Donut Lab battery's pouch cell lost its tightness.
VTT's laboratory tests have therefore encountered variables that Donut Lab itself had not expected. However, Donut Lab must be given points for having published the reports as they were, and also openly reported in its own communications, for example, about the failure of the bag cell.
https://www.kauppalehti.fi/uutiset/a/15c8dee6-7cad-4d31-8603-c8c898b196ca?ref=ampparit%3A570d (https://www.kauppalehti.fi/uutiset/a/15c8dee6-7cad-4d31-8603-c8c898b196ca?ref=ampparit%3A570d)
-
I still a bit confused.
The nutLAB has innovative donut style e-motors that apparently are 1) less $$ to make, 2) lighter, 3) make lots of power.
Why are the lab nuts trying to tout a battery when it's not in their wheelhouse? :-//
-
Note that even the donut style e-motor is questionable because it represents a lot of extra unsprung weight on the motorcycle. The motorcycle must make a really unpleasant "thunk" when it goes over a large bump or hole in the road. In addition, it is putting more stress on the tires.
The donut motor certainly is interesting but is it possible that it's a solution looking for a problem?
However, it looks cool.
One of my pet rants is the Cybertruck. It looks cool in a sci-fi way but as a pickup truck it's a piece of junk. There is even a risk of it chopping your fingers off!
Back to the electric motorcycle. Waiting to see what a real buyer posts about it. When will they ship? And is somebody going to open it up and tear down the battery pack and cut open one of those batteries??? It would be an expensive endeavor but you never know.
-
Back to the electric motorcycle. Waiting to see what a real buyer posts about it. When will they ship? And is somebody going to open it up and tear down the battery pack and cut open one of those batteries??? It would be an expensive endeavor but you never know.
My understanding is - they already ship it (with the "old" battery). I'm no motorcycle guy, but from what I have read, it is a mediocre ride at best (looks aside). Hard to imagine a new battery type could improve it a lot. It is just a show bike, and not a daily driver.
-
Note that even the donut style e-motor is questionable because it represents a lot of extra unsprung weight on the motorcycle. The motorcycle must make a really unpleasant "thunk" when it goes over a large bump or hole in the road. In addition, it is putting more stress on the tires.
Not to mention how do you keep dirt & water out of the large joint area
-
Two Bit Da Vinci is getting excited.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cpYeT4VmSY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cpYeT4VmSY)
-
An interesting read.
https://s3images.coroflot.com/user_files/individual_files/original_pdf_221275_mbm9je8xj0qgxtvx5f0ga0f3q.pdf
im sorry i cannot unsee this
:P
:-//
-
im sorry i cannot unsee this
Even exploring bad ideas might lead to better ideas; however a "this might work, but might also be a bad idea"-approach is something completely different to a "trust me bro, I invented something, will not show it to you, but give me all your money anyway", like I suspect Donut Lab to be.
-
TLDR;
Still massively skeptical.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPkJz7y3ozw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPkJz7y3ozw)
-
TLDR;
Still massively skeptical.
If they were looking to get attention, it worked. Everyone is putting out an opinion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8ljwigh9jA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8ljwigh9jA)
-
If they were looking to get attention, it worked. Everyone is putting out an opinion.
It seems they totally succeeded in making everyone believe they have a product. Maybe an iffy product, but some sort of unique product manufactured by them.
Initially that was the core of criticism - do they have anything at all? They have provided absolutely zero proof they have built anything, yet all that discussion is 100% gone. Now everything is about if maybe there is some good hidden gem lurking behind their mostly underwhelming tests, and maybe the next report is interesting. It seems I'm one of the few who still suspects that they are just testing some random commercial off-the-shelf cell as a decoy. That would perfectly align with all the test results.
-
I've noticed a slight softening of the scepticism. Let's be honest - some of us are just a teeny bit less sure that it's all a bullshit scam than we were a month ago. I can feel it.
As for me, I haven't the first clue about any of it so I've no idea what to believe.
-
If they were looking to get attention, it worked. Everyone is putting out an opinion.
It seems they totally succeeded in making everyone believe they have a product. Maybe an iffy product, but some sort of unique product manufactured by them.
You don't have a product until you ship it in volume into the market.
Especially with these magical woo-woo claims.
-
There was no practical number of charge/discharge cycles demonstrated. Forget about 100 000 cycles, give me a 1000 cycles battery, i'll be happy. Would you want a battery that charges in 5 min but can do it only 10 times before it dies.
-
If they were looking to get attention, it worked. Everyone is putting out an opinion.
It seems they totally succeeded in making everyone believe they have a product. Maybe an iffy product, but some sort of unique product manufactured by them.
You don't have a product until you ship it in volume into the market.
Especially with these magical woo-woo claims.
And let's not forget that initially the only thing which got exposure for their claims was the claim that the product is complete, ready, in production, and shipping in volumes in Q1/2026. A few days left for the first customers to get their bikes and tear down the batteries :-DD
-
There was no practical number of charge/discharge cycles demonstrated. Forget about 100 000 cycles, give me a 1000 cycles battery, i'll be happy. Would you want a battery that charges in 5 min but can do it only 10 times before it dies.
I think people would be impressed at 100 cycles.
Absolutely no legit reason why this shouldn't have been thoroughly demonstrated from day 1.
-
There was no practical number of charge/discharge cycles demonstrated. Forget about 100 000 cycles, give me a 1000 cycles battery, i'll be happy. Would you want a battery that charges in 5 min but can do it only 10 times before it dies.
I think people would be impressed at 100 cycles.
Absolutely no legit reason why this shouldn't have been thoroughly demonstrated from day 1.
Not really - the first VTT performance test shows how a standard li-ion cell behaves if abused with excessive charge power. A usual good COTS cell might as well be able to take it for 100 cycles. 1000 cycles would be a real differentiator.
And, nothing about energy density yet.
-
I think the "elephant in the room" question that has run through this thread is fascinating - if is this a fake or scam, to what end?
I don't buy that it's just a way of milking money out of excitable new investors. If this is fraud on that scale, then it's jail time for the CEO when it all falls apart. Those investors: some of them will have seriously big lawyers.
If/when it falls apart, this is going to destroy the professional reputation of the CEO, plus he'll face massive fines or jail time, plus he'll never be able to get a job at McDonald's, never mind in the industry.
So again: the fascinating question is: why?
-
So in this latest test they show us 50x cycling at 5C of the "damaged" cell from earlier high temperature tests. Results show reduced capacity, but also no fire.
Correct me if I am wrong, but they haven't show results of any other extended cycling tests? We just need to accept that this reduced capacity wouldn't also happen on an undamaged cell.
Sorry, but the way this has been presented so far: I DONUT BELIEVE >:D
Also weirdly they have pushed out the next test report & video drop by a couple of days to line up with April Fools Day!
-
Sorry im late, I had things to do, but as always, ladies and other ladies, here we go again, part 5:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5Ah0jXI3oU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5Ah0jXI3oU)
https://idonutbelieve.com/ (https://idonutbelieve.com/)
-
Now everything is about if maybe there is some good hidden gem lurking behind their mostly underwhelming tests, and maybe the next report is interesting. It seems I'm one of the few who still suspects that they are just testing some random commercial off-the-shelf cell as a decoy. That would perfectly align with all the test results.
I think a lot of people are making the mistake of treating them as if their testing is "reasonable" in some sense. That is, they are assuming that the test results are reflective of real word operation. You would never do performance testing of a NMC cell by charging at 11C and internally heating to 95C or whatever they did. You would never operate a cell like that in the real world as it would have a very short lifetime and be a serious safety risk in the non-laboratory environment. People are essentially taking the existence of these tests as evidence that the tests are reasonable to do.
On the other hand, if you change your perspective to: "If someone sent a test lab an off the shelf NMC cell and asked them to run these tests, what results might they get" -- then it seems that nothing shown so far disproves that hypothesis.
That's of course not proof that their battery is a Lithium Ion NMC cell. It logically _could_ be a lot of things. Without someone actually doing a teardown and analysis, you can't really *prove* that it's not something unique. But it means that the results they have shown so far are not by themselves indicative of anything beyond the performance you can get with modern COTS devices.
-
I think the "elephant in the room" question that has run through this thread is fascinating - if is this a fake or scam, to what end?
I don't buy that it's just a way of milking money out of excitable new investors. If this is fraud on that scale, then it's jail time for the CEO when it all falls apart. Those investors: some of them will have seriously big lawyers.
If/when it falls apart, this is going to destroy the professional reputation of the CEO, plus he'll face massive fines or jail time, plus he'll never be able to get a job at McDonald's, never mind in the industry.
So again: the fascinating question is: why?
There are some pretty common paths that people go down to land at doing a fraud.
Probably the most likely fit is that they did have something: some laboratory prototype, some promising initial result, something that gets them excited and supported raising early money. But then they run into inevitable problems trying to turn that into something practical, and follow the "fake it till you make it" route. Substituting a working product for your prototype is a common strategy here, and then the performance deficits compared to your promises can just be chalked up to "it's a prototype". Theranos famously did this all the way through commercialization, taking extra blood as "backup" and running it through standard test equipment to cover for the fact that their own stuff didn't work.
I've met a number of people with strong technical backgrounds, but who have completely swallowed the startup culture hype. All they really want to do is make a startup, and don't really care what it does. On paper if you look at their CV, they often have advanced degrees, have done solid research, or even been involved in successful product development. But because their actual internal goal isn't to make a product or anything concrete but just "to have a startup", they will overlook critical flaws until they are in over their head. They also often believe that "hustle" can make up for a lack of basic science and engineering.
This mentality is most obvious when listening to people working on actual physically nonsensical things like cold fusion and EM-drive. Some people just believe that if they want it to work, it will. Nothing Donut Lab is promising is obviously impossible from a fundamental physics point of view, but it could easily be the same mentality.
I also think it's incredibly naive to think that if this all blows up the CEO will be blacklisted and not be able to get a job in the industry. Trevor Milton was caught, among other things, faking a fuel cell powered semi by rolling it down hill. He is now out of jail and CED of an aircraft company.
-
a research battery NMC622 from dalhousie uni gets over 3000 cycles, 27% fade
which averages to about 0.009% fade per cycle (83% dod)
the VTT docu using the 7 cycles starting at 91Wh, we can assume average of 0.003% fade per cycle (100% dod)
but i think, the real cycling data would show after 11th cycle onwards
we could argue about the dod between the NMC622 / donut
but the donut battery is just displaying normal lithium behavior with slight higher lifecycle
so it looks like any normal lithium going for lifespan of >5000 cycles to me
but i think it is just <5000 cycles capability
did i miss anything ?
-
So in this latest test they show us 50x cycling at 5C of the "damaged" cell from earlier high temperature tests. Results show reduced capacity, but also no fire.
Does anyone know how interesting this is? I didn't see the damage, but they claim a standard lithium ion battery would completely fail and/or catch fire if you tried to use it with the pouch ruptured. But it's not exactly a standard puncture test, so I don't know if it's compatible.
-
So in this latest test they show us 50x cycling at 5C of the "damaged" cell from earlier high temperature tests. Results show reduced capacity, but also no fire.
Does anyone know how interesting this is? I didn't see the damage, but they claim a standard lithium ion battery would completely fail and/or catch fire if you tried to use it with the pouch ruptured. But it's not exactly a standard puncture test, so I don't know if it's compatible.
The latest video by Ricky of Two Bit da Vinci covers this topic. I'm not sure that with a sample size of one and only limited info being made available that too much should be read into it, but it does appear to be significantly better in terms of safety than typical liquid electrolyte cells. Not my area of expertise, but following along with interest.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWwPySIm9tU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWwPySIm9tU)
-
does this imply i should still continue to believe? u should look at the comments on the latest video (part 5) i laughed so hard. never ask woman her weight and most def never ask donut lab their battery weight, also apparently next reveal is extended to april fools day, which just adds to the hilarity of this invention. 🐷🐖🐽
-
I don't buy that it's just a way of milking money out of excitable new investors.
Why not? Their PR has been excellent: they started this journey by lying that they are not looking for investors and don't need money because they are already shipping the product. They set the stage for people to think just like you do.
In reality, they have been milking in investor money all the time, and not shipping. So, it walks like a duck...
Another mechanism is selling those motorcycles. I don't know how well that is going.
This is all speculation, of course, but I'm basically saying: often the simplest, most obvious explanation is the correct one. Everything else is just a smoke screen. I really don't see any actual difference to any other earlier battery investor scam: just PR looks different.
-
So in this latest test they show us 50x cycling at 5C of the "damaged" cell from earlier high temperature tests. Results show reduced capacity, but also no fire.
There is nothing weird at all a damaged li-ion not catching a fire when abused. Most abused cells never catch fire. I have charged cells with 40V, 10A power supply, I have shorted them - never a fire.
-
I don't buy that it's just a way of milking money out of excitable new investors.
Why not? Their PR has been excellent: they started this journey by lying that they are not looking for investors and don't need money because they are already shipping the product. They set the stage for people to think just like you do.
Because I think if that is their motivation then it's probably illegal. Also, illegal or not, some of those investors could probably invoke some serious lawyer power. It'd be like swatting a fly.
-
I don't buy that it's just a way of milking money out of excitable new investors.
Why not? Their PR has been excellent: they started this journey by lying that they are not looking for investors and don't need money because they are already shipping the product. They set the stage for people to think just like you do.
Because I think if that is their motivation then it's probably illegal. Also, illegal or not, some of those investors could probably invoke some serious lawyer power. It'd be like swatting a fly.
I agree there's a lot of downside for folks if they're really just pumping and dumping. Obviously, there have been people stupid enough to do it, though.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63685131 (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63685131)
-
Because I think if that is their motivation then it's probably illegal. Also, illegal or not, some of those investors could probably invoke some serious lawyer power. It'd be like swatting a fly.
Nah. Startups "misleading" people are pretty common. It's rare to lead to any repercussions for the people involved. Only when it gets really big (Theranos, Nikola) does anyone get any criminal charges. Mostly the legal challenges just end up settling who gets which pieces of whatever is left
-
I am not even sure I would buy anything from doNuts at Nutlab.
Buy hey, interesting tech they have there.
-
Buy hey, interesting tech they have there.
Do they? >:D
-
I am not even sure I would buy anything from doNuts at Nutlab.
You can't, so no need to worry!
-
hello friday here, lemme vent a little
i hate li-ion batteries for rapid degradation unless u use them every day and push thousands of kilometers out of them, i had to carry a massive li-ion battery in a bag via train with an e scooter to final dispensation station (sorting station) because it started cutting engine off, lost voltage and i tore it off and it was bulged, 100% charge but it wont come out smoothly, so i hate every single forsaken lithium ion battery
these guys ive read their leaked investor emails and stuff, they have over 3000+ investors / interested in investing, and to my eyes all the tests prove they have something you or me dont have, i am addicted to the safety
they also graduated in battery science which u should probably if u invent a battery
no battery fire no blaze if something goes wrong, end of vent adios amigos back when the new video emerges + study
-
Do I understand correctly that Don't Believe does not have a date for releasing weight per kw?
-
Buy hey, interesting tech they have there.
Do they? >:D
Do people eat hot dogs? (eating is not the mystery)
The mysteries abound us.
-
hello friday here, lemme vent a little
i hate li-ion batteries for rapid degradation unless u use them every day and push thousands of kilometers out of them, i had to carry a massive li-ion battery in a bag via train with an e scooter to final dispensation station (sorting station) because it started cutting engine off, lost voltage and i tore it off and it was bulged, 100% charge but it wont come out smoothly, so i hate every single forsaken lithium ion battery
This is because that e-scooter pack is the literal worst factory floor junk. Look at any decent cell used by any decent laptop or phone manufacturer, or used in any EV, and problems are rare. It is almost unbelievable how like >98% of EVs make it over the 200 000 mile / 300 000 km mark no problem, and those have a lot of cells, lots of surface area.
The key is in manufacturing processes and quality control (and maybe some secret ingredients and tricks). And price difference between excellent stuff and junk is not huge. Good stuff is less than $100/kWh (to manufacturers). Alibaba factory floor scrap is not even that much cheaper, because material costs are still there so there is a limit how much you can save by allowing contaminants and misaligning electrodes, but it's what's ends up in gadgets, toys and Chinese e-scooters anyway. Then the shit burns and we collectively pay the price.
-
I am not even sure I would buy anything from doNuts at Nutlab.
You can't, so no need to worry!
Did you guys notice how that clown looking individual carefully crafted the message back then? "This battery is available for purchase right now!" Available for purchase , get it? Not for delivery. I can have tickets to the Moon available for purchase. Can you buy them from me? Sure. Would they take you to the Moon ? ::)
-
I have often purchased goods (e.g. forthcoming books) that were not yet available but would be shipped after a given date.
Sometimes, it doesn’t work.
Legitimate booksellers may wait until shipment before charging the credit card.
-
Right, the product may not be available at the time when it was purchased. That was the well hidden point with the battery marketing message at the CES.
-
hello friday here, lemme vent a little
i hate li-ion batteries for rapid degradation unless u use them every day and push thousands of kilometers out of them, i had to carry a massive li-ion battery in a bag via train with an e scooter to final dispensation station (sorting station) because it started cutting engine off, lost voltage and i tore it off and it was bulged, 100% charge but it wont come out smoothly, so i hate every single forsaken lithium ion battery
This is because that e-scooter pack is the literal worst factory floor junk. Look at any decent cell used by any decent laptop or phone manufacturer, or used in any EV, and problems are rare. It is almost unbelievable how like >98% of EVs make it over the 200 000 mile / 300 000 km mark no problem, and those have a lot of cells, lots of surface area.
The key is in manufacturing processes and quality control (and maybe some secret ingredients and tricks). And price difference between excellent stuff and junk is not huge. Good stuff is less than $100/kWh (to manufacturers). Alibaba factory floor scrap is not even that much cheaper, because material costs are still there so there is a limit how much you can save by allowing contaminants and misaligning electrodes, but it's what's ends up in gadgets, toys and Chinese e-scooters anyway. Then the shit burns and we collectively pay the price.
Agreed, the range of quality available is astounding. This post reminded me of a recent Adam Savage video where a company shows off their X-ray tech by analyzing 18650 cells. I'm sure we'd all love to see some of these images of what Donut is producing or plans to produce.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Y23nfAOiXQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Y23nfAOiXQ)
-
now even im not safe in safe country, ukies attack us with drones, anyway 5 hours to yours and truly revealing new donut intel and it better not be a joke (april 1)
-
Neighbours acting funny but not funny enough so i would miss my chance to obsess over a tech that may or may not exist, only but a battery, bring me part 6:
also its fools day idk what to expect
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=822IBr5SjEU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=822IBr5SjEU)
https://idonutbelieve.com/ (https://idonutbelieve.com/)
-
Neighbours acting funny but not funny enough so i would miss my chance to obsess over a tech that may or may not exist, only but a battery, bring me part 6:
also its fools day idk what to expect
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=822IBr5SjEU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=822IBr5SjEU)
https://idonutbelieve.com/ (https://idonutbelieve.com/)
But have you already bought the coffee mug and T-shirt?
-
i never said it exists im not them im a goober a very silly one, im too busy buying cpu cores cant even watch the video because its too long my attention span doesnt last i went to play rocket league
-
I don't buy that it's just a way of milking money out of excitable new investors.
Why not? Their PR has been excellent: they started this journey by lying that they are not looking for investors and don't need money because they are already shipping the product. They set the stage for people to think just like you do.
In reality, they have been milking in investor money all the time, and not shipping. So, it walks like a duck...
Another mechanism is selling those motorcycles. I don't know how well that is going.
This is all speculation, of course, but I'm basically saying: often the simplest, most obvious explanation is the correct one. Everything else is just a smoke screen. I really don't see any actual difference to any other earlier battery investor scam: just PR looks different.
So the company was lying and milking in investor money all the time, and not shipping. Damn I thought you were talking about Elon Musk and Tesla for a moment. Did you check if Donut was getting 60% of their profits from subsidies like Tesla?, that would be funny.
I don't see what all the drama is about when this is par for the course for most businesses.
-
So the company was lying and milking in investor money all the time, and not shipping. Damn I thought you were talking about Elon Musk and Tesla for a moment. Did you check if Donut was getting 60% of their profits from subsidies like Tesla?, that would be funny.
I don't see what all the drama is about when this is par for the course for most businesses.
Most dont know where Elon companies get money from. A large share is taxpayer money.
Drama, ? All this donut talk is making me hungry. ;)
-
Is it just me or do goobers forget all the highlights? VTT is real entity and u cant fabricate their results. Now we just need to wait another 3000000000 billion weeks for the right test results, stay patient i guess
-
I've gotta say, the IDoNutBelieve campaign is one of the best PR campaigns I've ever seen. 10/10
-
Part of me wants the whole thing to be "true". Part of me wants a tinpot outfit to have beaten the industry giants and to have produced a solid-state battery that really is as good in every way as they claim it to be, and ready to go in 2026.
Part of me wants to see the industry giants shaken to the core. Part of me wants to see the vast number of cynics eat their words. Part of me wants to see the massive shockwaves arising from a major breakthrough in one of the most important technologies of this century.
Just think: if it were all true the implications would be massive - would you not want to witness and live through that?
Part of me - the biggest part of me - realises that the chances of this becoming true are vanishingly small.
-
Part of me wants the whole thing to be "true".
Sure, everyone wants it to be true. That's why the scam works.
But if they had what they claim it would take 2 minutes to prove and they would have the world banging down their doors -- not for more data and not to invest, but to place giant orders worth billions of dollars. Well cycle life would take longer than two minutes but they could have run thousands of cycles since their first "test". They could have been continuously live streamng tihe power supply going through load cycles.
Hell if their claims hold up, it's likely that in the near future lithium NMC batteries could be banned in some applications. Lithium ion fires are rare but serious enough that if there were a replacement that worked as well or better but was significantly safer there would be little reason to keep using them.
Based on their actions either they have nothing at all or they have something with a few minor advantages that come with serious tradeoffs.
-
I've gotta say, the IDoNutBelieve campaign is one of the best PR campaigns I've ever seen. 10/10
So true !
Marko Lehtimäki announced that the battery variant tested in the previous videos is not even the final version, and that a 2.0 variant will actually start production by the end of the year. However, that would be the subject of another video series, which Donut Lab CEO teased as "season 2" of the I Donut Believe campaign.
https://www.autoevolution.com/news/donut-lab-looks-more-and-more-like-a-scam-as-it-fails-to-prove-it-produced-a-solid-state-battery-267955.html (https://www.autoevolution.com/news/donut-lab-looks-more-and-more-like-a-scam-as-it-fails-to-prove-it-produced-a-solid-state-battery-267955.html)
-
Marko Lehtimäki announced that the battery variant tested in the previous videos is not even the final version, and that a 2.0 variant will actually start production by the end of the year. However, that would be the subject of another video series, which Donut Lab CEO teased as "season 2" of the I Donut Believe campaign.
The charlie brown football gag never gets old.
-
Part of me wants the whole thing to be "true". Part of me wants a tinpot outfit to have beaten the industry giants and to have produced a solid-state battery that really is as good in every way as they claim it to be, and ready to go in 2026.
Part of me wants to see the industry giants shaken to the core. Part of me wants to see the vast number of cynics eat their words. Part of me wants to see the massive shockwaves arising from a major breakthrough in one of the most important technologies of this century.
Just think: if it were all true the implications would be massive - would you not want to witness and live through that?
Part of me - the biggest part of me - realises that the chances of this becoming true are vanishingly small.
Indeed and much of the harsh criticism seems to rely on the crab effect. More so when we have become a culture of comparison. So rather than raise others up we tend to drag them down. In effect, if not us then nobody.
Many others are saying, if they have the technology why not prove it?. Which reminds me of the saying, what is proof when the proof is unacceptable?. The most common theme is outright denial, it could be true then claiming they had the same idea last summer only better.
Science and technology seems much easier to understand that human nature imo.
-
I've gotta say, the IDoNutBelieve campaign is one of the best PR campaigns I've ever seen. 10/10
That Nikola ev truck rolling down the hill via gravity was a nifty PR ad. It fooled everyone, until some beans fell out.
-
Marko Lehtimäki announced that the battery variant tested in the previous videos is not even the final version, and that a 2.0 variant will actually start production by the end of the year. However, that would be the subject of another video series, which Donut Lab CEO teased as "season 2" of the I Donut Believe campaign.
https://www.autoevolution.com/news/donut-lab-looks-more-and-more-like-a-scam-as-it-fails-to-prove-it-produced-a-solid-state-battery-267955.html (https://www.autoevolution.com/news/donut-lab-looks-more-and-more-like-a-scam-as-it-fails-to-prove-it-produced-a-solid-state-battery-267955.html)
[/quote]
Who could have possibly predicted they drag this out forever! I'm shocked! ::)
-
Part of me wants the whole thing to be "true".
Sure, everyone wants it to be true. That's why the scam works.
But if they had what they claim it would take 2 minutes to prove and they would have the world banging down their doors -- not for more data and not to invest, but to place giant orders worth billions of dollars. Well cycle life would take longer than two minutes but they could have run thousands of cycles since their first "test". They could have been continuously live streamng tihe power supply going through load cycles.
And gave the ebikes using the battery to a dozen Youtube review channels for a week and tell them to have at it.
If you can't produce a few dozens of these prototype batteries to shop around demos like that, then you've got nothing.
-
Based on their actions either they have nothing at all or they have something with a few minor advantages that come with serious tradeoffs.
Reminds me of the Batteriser. Countless people said it was a scam, but I said they'd deliver and ultimately they did, and it was actually quite well engineered. It just never met the ridiculous marketing claims, not even close.
In the case of Donut, I think it's the latter. They have something, but it ultimately won't ever live up to the claims. And making a production battery at scale is not trivial. If I had to bet, I'd bet that it just quietly fades away into nothing after a few years.
-
currently the SSD prices are way high
and then just like the donut lab battery
you spot a $50buck offer for 1TB
no way
this cannot be true
:-DD
come to think of it
someone must have already bought a test vehicle no ?
i suppose they have NDA for buying 1 ?
you are not allowed to post reviews ?
:-DD
-
someone must have already bought a test vehicle no ?
i suppose they have NDA for buying 1 ?
you are not allowed to post reviews ?
There is no doubt that anyone who gets their hands physically on one of these will either be under NDA, or under contract not to physically dismantle it or remove the battery from the bike and subject it to your own testing.
-
davie why u think there are always 3000 people waiting for the video to go live? cus half of them are contracted to obtain it and take a glimpse inside
also stop spamming dave, u can quote multiple people in one post, i might take moderative action against u if u continue
jokes jokes i hope u likes it im gonna hide under AUKUS now.
-
It looks like BYD has been panicked into making bullshit statements about their solid state batteries:
https://carnewschina.com/2026/04/08/byd-chief-scientist-solid-state-battery-at-critical-breakthrough-stage-while-commercialisation-constrained/ (https://carnewschina.com/2026/04/08/byd-chief-scientist-solid-state-battery-at-critical-breakthrough-stage-while-commercialisation-constrained/)
-
From the online chitter.
Chery's solid-state battery claims are currently viewed as more credible and grounded in industrial reality than Donut Lab's, which have been widely labeled as contradictory or potentially a scam by industry experts.
Chery, along with other major Chinese manufacturers like Geely, CATL, and BYD, is actively developing and testing all-solid-state batteries with energy densities approaching 600 Wh/kg, with prototypes already undergoing winter testing. In contrast, Donut Lab claims a 400 Wh/kg density with 100,000 cycles and 5-minute charging, but these specifications have been rejected by Chinese battery giants like Svolt Energy, whose CEO stated, "That battery doesn't exist in the world," citing contradictory parameters.
-
There is definitely a race to release a solid-state battery with full volume production capacity for the automotive industry. It takes a long time to get approval and designed-in to an electric vehicle so it's hard to know when everything will go mainstream. 2027? 2028? 2029?
If you are optimistic you can look back at history for fairly quick technology changeovers. From the videocassette to the DVD, from CRT televisions to flat-screen televisions, from dumb phones to smartphones.
Hopefully sooner than later. The stakes are high. I don't see Donut Lab being in the running at all.
-
What approvals do car and electronic manufactures need to use a new battery?
-
It's a long and exhaustive process to get a part designed into an automobile. The auto industry is very conservative and will go through a very long and stringent procedure to eventually approve a part for mass production. They can't afford part recalls, the possible danger to the public, and adverse publicity if they make a mistake. To get a battery designed-in to an electric vehicle might take a year or more.
-
Does anyone know why Don't Believe didn't publish a video today and miss their Monday new video schedule?
-
What approvals do car and electronic manufactures need to use a new battery?
At least in EU, none. Consumer electronics and cars are all self-certified products - no official approvals. Of course there are standards one "needs" to follow - even then, most of the details are not 100% binding if you can show equivalent safety, and large manufacturers of course are good at this. And whenever something is new and doesn't fall into the scope of the existing standards, it gives more freedom, not the other way.
Basically, large manufacturers can and will do whatever they want.
-
The CCO of Nordic Nano Group, Lauri Peltola has opened a criminal case against Donut Lab with the Finnish Police.
Due to Donut Lab's misleading or untrue statements.
Paywalled article in Finnish here:
https://www.hs.fi/visio/art-2000011948614.html (https://www.hs.fi/visio/art-2000011948614.html)
Helsingin Sanomat (HS) is the largest news paper in Finland and is generally considered reliable, they are not yellow press.
So it looks like Nordic Nano is doing damage control due to them being in the blast radius of the Donut Circus.
-
The COO of the company that manufactures the batteries says Donut Lab overstates their battery and are misleading investors. Do investors get to see technical info unreleased to the public before investing to make their investing decision?
-
according to the emails viewed by HS, CT-Coating had abandoned development on that cell in favor of a one still in early development, despite Donut Lab’s claim in January that it had a technology ready to enter mass production.
https://www.engadget.com/transportation/donut-labs-battery-claims-reportedly-subject-of-whistleblower-complaint-142133269.html (https://www.engadget.com/transportation/donut-labs-battery-claims-reportedly-subject-of-whistleblower-complaint-142133269.html)
-
:-DD
(https://cf.preview.redd.it/nordic-nano-cco-has-reported-donut-lab-to-the-finnish-police-v0-55d8yxqxcqvg1.png?width=1536&format=png&auto=webp&s=d119819d17a9c271e8d858f8678be86892434d22)
-
The CCO of Nordic Nano Group, Lauri Peltola has opened a criminal case against Donut Lab with the Finnish Police.
That escalated quickly.
Nevermind.
I still have a bridge to sell you. Interested?
-
Hah. And now there is a statement from Donut Labd and Nordic Nano Group:
https://www.donutlab.com/donut-labin-ja-nordic-nanon-lausunto-yksityishenkilon-tekemaan-rikosilmoitukseen-liittyen-17-4/ (https://www.donutlab.com/donut-labin-ja-nordic-nanon-lausunto-yksityishenkilon-tekemaan-rikosilmoitukseen-liittyen-17-4/)
About a "criminal complaint made by a private individual".
Helsingin Sanomat did note in it's full article that the person making the complaint also made one to Finanssivalvonta, the financial regulator in Finland.
This means that he should have legal whistleblower protection and thus cannot be fired for doing so.
So we'll see how things go.
But the Donut & NNG statement boils down to "The complainer is not part of the battery technology group, does not know anything about batteries and is not an investor in either companies.".
-
About a "criminal complaint made by a private individual".
Helsingin Sanomat did note in it's full article that the person making the complaint also made one to Finanssivalvonta, the financial regulator in Finland.
This means that he should have legal whistleblower protection and thus cannot be fired for doing so.
Then he is an employee of the company and is not a "private individual".
"The complainer is not part of the battery technology group, does not know anything about batteries"
This is a silly claim, he is the chief operating officer, my COO is also not part of the Application Support group or Code Development group, and is not responsible for weekly patching either. It is not his role.
and is not an investor in either companies.".
How is this relevant? Another stupid claim.
-
Is this what Donut's CEO really has said (4:00...4:07) ? :-DD
https://youtu.be/OvfHRH-VNis?si=7pyauUhYROFA9Dtr&t=237 (https://youtu.be/OvfHRH-VNis?si=7pyauUhYROFA9Dtr&t=237)
-
Is this what Donut's CEO really has said (4:00...4:07) ? :-DD
https://youtu.be/OvfHRH-VNis?si=7pyauUhYROFA9Dtr&t=237 (https://youtu.be/OvfHRH-VNis?si=7pyauUhYROFA9Dtr&t=237)
April 1st video posted above https://www.eevblog.com/forum/dodgy-technology/donut-lab-alleged-solid-state-battery-launched-at-ces-2026/msg6227695/#msg6227695 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/dodgy-technology/donut-lab-alleged-solid-state-battery-launched-at-ces-2026/msg6227695/#msg6227695) at 10:13, it was meant to be a joke.
-
Well, they have a good ad on their main site for a battery that has 100k cycles, with very fast charge, and decent 400 WH/Kg
It's not a true SS batt, but it sounds cool
https://www.donutlab.com/battery/ (https://www.donutlab.com/battery/)
-
Joe Scott has a video, haven't watched it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMqHlPtSb4M (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMqHlPtSb4M)
-
Nothingburger, waste of time.
-
In the latest episode of the Donut circus, we get data on how the batteries swell during charge and discharge cycles.
Which is apparently 4.4%. I have no frame of reference if that's high or low.
https://pub-42f0d4b46caf415e9a502bcf403fab62.r2.dev/VTT_CustomerReport_Swelling_test.pdf
-
The impression I have is the DL hype dried up when DL didn't release the specs. One day if they release something important, the release will not have the hype they expected because the front peak is gone.
-
One day if they release something important, the release will not have the hype they expected because the front peak is gone.
Totally agree - they've messed up big time. The momentum has gone. It feels like yesterday's news.
-
Totally agree - they've messed up big time.
How do we know? Any guesses how much investor money they hogged? How well have they hidden the money against lawsuits from disgruntled investors? How well have they covered their assess, e.g., if someone needs to go to jail, it will be some scapegoat while the owners are free to go and fetch the money they hid?
Of course the cow is dead now and can't be milked anymore. But it might still have been a very successful operation. We don't know.
-
The impression I have is the DL hype dried up when DL didn't release the specs. One day if they release something important, the release will not have the hype they expected because the front peak is gone.
Even Two Bit Davinci seems to be getting a bit tired of it.
Otherwise why would he bother asking if people want to see another video?
-
The impression I have is the DL hype dried up when DL didn't release the specs. One day if they release something important, the release will not have the hype they expected because the front peak is gone.
The obvious conclusion is that they never had any (interesting) specs to release.
-
All their PR videos from January to May were about rev one of their battery. They didn't release the specs and rev one passed. Now their on rev two. The only option is getting a battery from their motorcycle and I don't know anyone doing that.
-
There's a new vid coming out soon. Even better than the last. :-DD
-
davie why u think there are always 3000 people waiting for the video to go live? cus half of them are contracted to obtain it and take a glimpse inside
also stop spamming dave, u can quote multiple people in one post, i might take moderative action against u if u continue
jokes jokes i hope u likes it im gonna hide under AUKUS now.
And the pig guy hasn't been back since. Strange. Was this a sock puppet from donut?
-
davie why u think there are always 3000 people waiting for the video to go live? cus half of them are contracted to obtain it and take a glimpse inside
also stop spamming dave, u can quote multiple people in one post, i might take moderative action against u if u continue
jokes jokes i hope u likes it im gonna hide under AUKUS now.
And the pig guy hasn't been back since. Strange. Was this a sock puppet from donut?
They were in fact................ abusing AI to crank out what wasn't.
However, I did hear they were about to upscale all their vids to HD4k so that it can look even better for the investors. :-DD
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjsqMlikxac (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjsqMlikxac)
- We are manufacturing in tiny buildings near where the customer is
- No we won't show any actual photos, equipment, or even floor plan layouts
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5oyVNjrUPI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5oyVNjrUPI)
-
They lied?
Say it isn't so, Joe, say it isn't so!
"Say it ain't so, Joe" is the most famous phrase in baseball history, originating from the 1919 Black Sox scandal. It refers to a heartbroken young fan pleading with Chicago White Sox star "Shoeless" Joe Jackson, who was accused of conspiring with gamblers to throw the World Series.
It's like Maxwell Chikumbutso all over again!
-
youtube.com/watch?v=j5oyVNjrUPI (http://youtube.com/watch?v=j5oyVNjrUPI)
40mins wow
12:01 - solar roads make their first appearance, with patent.
13:xx - sodium quinone battery research - not used but interesting
17:33 - confirmed as NCM cell
22:00 - 298 Wh/kg
27:30 - leaked emails
32:00 - "just wait a little bit longer"..
40:22 - trying to get prepayments for the batteries, before shipping anything
In other news CATL is already mass producing sodium ion, at 30% lower cost than LFP. Expect it to keep dropping.
-
Ok, after a little research it does appear the Nut Lab folks are themselves just doing what others have been doing for a long time. Hype your alpha products as a "selling now" item.
Nothing new folks.
Nikola Motors (bankrupt)
Apple (can get away with it)
NEO Humanoid bots (TBD)
.... many many more
They all do it. A strategy to get your money before the product actually reaches full spec capability. It's a bad approach IMHO, but perhaps no different than pressing the buy button in your fav equities trading app.
Watch and listen carefully
https://youtube.com/watch?v=j31dmodZ-5c
-
The whistleblower from Nordic Nano Group has published more stuff:
https://www.solidstateoftruth.com/resources (https://www.solidstateoftruth.com/resources)
Mostly just copies of the evidence they have sent to the Finnish financial regulatory authority.
And some investor letters from Donut Lab and Verge.
-
So the thing that behaved like an off the shelf Li-Ion battery run beyond safe limits was in fact an off the shelf lithium ion battery run beyond safe limits?
/Shocked pikachu
-
So the thing that behaved like an off the shelf Li-Ion battery run beyond safe limits was in fact an off the shelf lithium ion battery run beyond safe limits?
Exactly what sensible (and great and nice and modest) people like me predicted early on:
But the charge curve, the amount of internal resistance, all mean their sample could be just a state-of-the-art, COTS NCA/NMC high-power cell, overdriven to 4.3V and 11C rating, because in such test, they don't have to care about aging (because it's tested only for a few cycles, not 100000). Heck, 10 year ago I tested COTS LCO and NCA cells charged to 4.45V instead of rated 4.20V, seeing +20% capacity, and no damage / no capacity degradation after 10 cycles, after which I stopped. I could have had VTT to rerun the same test and claim that I have a new battery tech with 20% better capacity, and higher 4.45V voltage, definitely not based on lithium and cobalt, and capable of 100000 cycles. This kind of stunt is easy enough to arrange.
-
So the thing that behaved like an off the shelf Li-Ion battery run beyond safe limits was in fact an off the shelf lithium ion battery run beyond safe limits?
/Shocked pikachu
Yeah, but theirs had 3 more protons in it. Special.
-
The latest available video in the donut circus is actually pretty interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRNNsFZKXbo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRNNsFZKXbo)
If they truly can tailor the voltage by stacking layers in the pouch cell, it will be interesting to see how well they stay in balance.
Ofc the voltages shown (3.30V, 4.97V and 7.8V) could be one normal lipo, two discharged lipos in the same pouch and two lipos with a decent charge in one pouch.
It's not like the nickel strips would show that badly from the middle of it.
-
Is there a drilled hole under each cell, with wires taking the different voltages from psu's under the bench to the "battery" tabs.
At this stage I don't know what to believe.
-
The latest available video in the donut circus is actually pretty interesting.
If they truly can tailor the voltage by stacking layers in the pouch cell, it will be interesting to see how well they stay in balance.
Ofc the voltages shown (3.30V, 4.97V and 7.8V) could be one normal lipo, two discharged lipos in the same pouch and two lipos with a decent charge in one pouch.
It's not like the nickel strips would show that badly from the middle of it.
Everything, except giving it to a third party to make a full test report.
No, instead we show some voltage levels, that may be a battery or a capacitor or a bunch of coin cells in series. :-//
Measured with a Chinese 100 EUR multimeter. Without load.
-
Does anyone have any interest in anything these Donut clowns have to say any more?
Their scam is over, time to move on.
-
Does anyone have any interest in anything these Donut clowns have to say any more?
Their scam is over, time to move on.
I have been dissatisfied with the lack of shitstorm. Scam is indeed over but usually the best part is what follows after that :popcorn: - and that's been lackluster, so far.
Of course when lawyers and cops get involved, it can delay the shitstorm by 2-3 years. And at that point, most people have lost their interest, meh.